Alien expelled for attempted robbery and other offences

Case no. 22/2024
Judgment delivered on 5 November 2024

The Prosecution Service
vs.
A

A, a Somali citizen who came to Denmark in 2005 at the age of seven, had been convicted by the High Court for attempted robbery and violation of the Danish Knife Act for attempting together with a second offender to force a taxi driver to hand over money by holding a knife to his throat in 2021, and for hitting a fellow inmate in the head using a sock stuffed with an empty tin can while he was detained in custody. The High Court sentenced A to prison for one year and expelled him from Denmark with a six-year entry ban.

One of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether expelling A was contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including in particular whether the measure met the requirement for proportionality in that provision. 

The Supreme Court stated that the criteria on which a proportionality assessment must be based were explained in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 June 2008 in case 1638/03 (Maslov v Austria), paragraph 68 et seq. According to paragraph 75 of that judgment, “for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in the host country, very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion”.

Regarding the proportionality assessment in this case, the Supreme Court observed that the attempted robbery against the taxi driver at issue in this case had to be regarded as serious assault against a person who is at particular risk of violence because of the nature of his job. 

Furthermore, in 2015, A had been sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months for, among other things, robbery, in which case A had forced the victim to hand over money by the use of serious violence, hitting the victim several times over the head and on the arms with a table leg and punching him, just as the victim was kicked while lying on the floor. 

In addition, prior to the District Court’s judgment in this case, A had several convictions for violation of the Euphoriants Act, the Criminal Act, the Knife Act, the Road Traffic Act and the Executive Order on Offensive Weapons and more. 

Finally, in June 2024, A was sentenced to imprisonment for five months and was issued with an expulsion warning for being in possession of a knife and a bushcraft axe during a hearing in a case involving two rival factions, and for, among other things, being in possession of 45.5 grams of cannabis essentially with intent to supply and for being in possession of a knife in a public place. The offence committed during the hearing and the possession of cannabis offence were committed only a few months after the District Court’s judgment in this case.

A had not been to Somalia since he came to Denmark in 2005 when he was seven years old, and he had no family in Somalia. He spoke a little Somali. It had to be assumed that he had some knowledge of Somali custom and culture through his family in Denmark.

The Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that A’s ties with Denmark were much stronger than his ties with Somalia, but that he would not be entirely unable to fit into Somali society if he were expelled. 

Based on an overall assessment of the nature and extent of the offences committed by A, the Supreme Court agreed that there were very serious reasons to expel him, regardless of his strong ties with Denmark and limited ties with Somalia. For these reasons, the Supreme Court determined that the entry ban should be six years.

On this basis, A was expelled from Denmark with a six-year entry ban for drug crime.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.