Today’s news / Supreme Court leaves prosecution in a quandary in secrets case
Special Prosecutor Kia Reumert is one of the prosecutors who has led the prosecution in the criminal case against Lars Findsen. Here she is seen at the Court in Lyngby, which is scheduled to start the case at the end of November. Photo: Liselotte Sabroe/archive/Ritzau Scanpix

Supreme Court leaves prosecution in a quandary in secrets case

The Supreme Court’s decision in connection with criminal cases concerning the leaking of state secrets has delivered the State Prosecution Service with a serious quandary; Whether to continue court cases against Lars Finsen and Claus Hjort Frederiksen or completely drop the cases. Lars Finsen is the relieved head of the Defence Intelligence Service and Claus Hjort Frederiksen is a former Defence Minister.
     According to Criminal Law Professor Emeritus Jørn Vestergaard there are arguments both for carrying out the cases – and abandoning them altogether. “The cases have taken a completely different turn,” he says. Especially since Friday’s rulings when the country’s highest court officially confirms what Lars Findsen and Claus Hjort are accused of talking about when, according to the prosecution’s allegation, they divulged secrets of importance to state security – that they passed on information about an agreement between the Defence Intelligence Service and the U.S. intelligence service NSA.
     In its decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the two cases can be heard partly in public. This is contrary to the demand of the prosecution service for total door closure from start to finish. In meticulous detail, the Supreme Court judges have described how the doors can be opened and closed during the impending trials. “It is almost a kind of responsum,” Vestergaard says. “It can be embarrassing if you decide to drop the cases after the Supreme Court has given a clear playbook on how the cases can be conducted satisfactorily,” he says. “At first glance, it will seem incomprehensible if it is maintained that it will not be possible. It could act as a disavowal of the Supreme Court. It can be difficult to justify that you believe that the Supreme Court has not understood the reality of this,” says Jørn Vestergaard.
    But there is also something pulling in the other direction, he says, inside the thinking cabin where the prosecution’s lawyers now find themselves. “One can easily imagine that there is no longer the same eagerness, desire and zeal on the part of the two services to have the cases conducted,” Vestergaard said, referring to the Police Security and Intelligence Service (PET) and the Defence Intelligence Service (FE).
     Both Finsen and Hjort Frederiksen deny the charges. /ritzau/