4 ms·
This article is severely dated. On 27th October the Supreme Court decided that the cases would only be partially closed to the public and that the accused would
by macmac 3y ago
This article is severely dated. On 27th October the Supreme Court decided that the cases would only be partially closed to the public and that the accused would have full access to the charges and supporting material. The Prosecution Service asserted that this would expose highly sensitive material to unacceptable risk of unauthorized disclosure and dropped the cases.
- mrweasel 3y agoAs many others, I find the whole thing to be a complete mess and we have no idea of what is actually happening. The Supreme Court must have had access to the charge and the relevant material, and the court apparently disagrees that charge and evidence is sensitive enough that at warrants closed doors. I find it beyond belief that you're allowed, even as a government, to drag someone to court and accuse them of actions that could harm the country, while refusing to let them or their defense know exactly what they did wrong.
- Svip 3y ago> I find it beyond belief that you're allowed, even as a government, to drag someone to court and accuse them of actions that could harm the country, while refusing to let them or their defense know exactly what they did wrong. Given the Supreme Court's verdict, it sounds like you are not allowed to do that.
- born2discover 3y agoThe Guardian seems to have covered that as well here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defence-minister-and-spy-chief-relieved-after-charges-dropped https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/ex-danish-defe...
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y agothis comment is highly informative and deserves upvotes
- sva_ 3y agoSounds like they got a stern warning and the public is being mislead.