Three people convicted for threatening violence against the Danish Prime.

Case no. 55/2024
Judgment delivered on 3 January 2025.

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T1, T2 and T3

The High Court had found T1, T2 and T3 guilty of violating section 119(1) of the Danish Criminal Code by publicly threatening violence against Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen during a demonstration against COVID-19 restrictions on 23 January 2021. They hung a full-size mannequin from a lamppost with a picture of the Prime Minister’s face on its face and a sign around its neck with the words “SHE MUST AND WILL BE KILLED!” written in large red letters. They were sentenced by the High Court to 40 days in prison.

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the text on the sign, taken together with the hanging mannequin, constituted a threat of violence against Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, cf. section 119(1) of the Criminal Code, and, if so, whether a conviction for violation of section 119(1) would be contrary to T1’s, T2’s and T3’s right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court stated that, under section 119(1) of the Criminal Code, anyone who publicly threatens violence against a person required to act by virtue of a public office or function is liable to punishment. The provision entails special protection under criminal law, which is justified by the fact that the persons concerned are particularly vulnerable to attack and therefore need extra protection against the risk of violence and threats that their public function implies, including so that they can perform their duties without hindrance.  

Whether a threat of violence has been made must be based on an overall assessment of, among other things, the wording of the statement and the context in which it was made.

As a result of its assessment of the evidence, the High Court found, among other things, that T2 and T3 had jointly planned to bring a full-size mannequin to the demonstration on 23 January 2021 against COVID-19 restrictions, that the mannequin, on whose face they had placed a picture of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and which they had dressed and given a wig, was intended to resemble the Prime Minister, and that they had hung a sign around the mannequin’s neck with the words “SHE MUST AND WILL BE KILLED!” written in large red letters, that they jointly hung the doll from a lamppost with a tie-down strap around its neck so that the doll and the sign were visible to, among others, the other demonstrators, and that they did so even though T1 remarked during the hanging that “it was a really bad idea” and that “it was a death threat”.

Referring to the High Court’s assessment of the evidence and based on an overall assessment of the wording of sign and the hanging mannequin and the circumstances in general, the Supreme Court found that this constituted a public threat of violence (a death threat) against Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. The defendants were therefore rightly found guilty of violating section 119(1) of the Criminal Code.

The question was then whether a conviction for violating section 119(1) would be contrary to article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention on freedom of expression.  

On this point, the Supreme Court stated that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it must be assumed that, when assessing under article 10 whether a statement constitutes a threat of violence against individuals, it is not only the wording of the statement that must be taken into account, but also, among other things, the context in which it was made.  

As mentioned above, in the present case, it was considered based on an overall assessment of, among other things, the wording of the statement in conjunction with the context in which it was made that this was a threat of violence (a death threat) directed at a specific person. Regardless of the fact that the statement was made and the mannequin was hung during a demonstration and was directed against the Danish Government’s policy, the Supreme Court found that a conviction for violation of section 119(1) of the Criminal Code would not be contrary to article 10 of the ECHR. 

The Supreme Court noted that this conviction does not mean that the population is prevented from criticising the policies pursued by the Prime Minister and the Government, including, for example, by criticising the Government’s policies through statements that are offensive, shocking or disturbing.

The Supreme Court found that there was no basis for referring to section 81(7) of the Criminal Code, according to which, in general, the fact that the offence is motivated by the injured party’s lawful expressions in the public debate must be considered an aggravating circumstance when determining the sentence.

With reference in particular to the serious nature of the threat – which consisted not only of the words on the sign in question (“SHE MUST AND WILL BE KILLED!”), but also of a mannequin that was supposed to resemble Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that was hung from a lamppost with a tie-down strap around its neck – the Supreme Court agreed that T1, T2 and T3 should be sentenced to 40 days in prison.

The Supreme Court thus affirmed the judgment of the High Court.