Not a punishable offence for refugee to use another person’s ID...

Case no. 95/2024

Judgment delivered on 17 June 2025

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

On 7 November 2022, T was arrested when trying to cross the border into Denmark from Germany in Kruså and charged with violation of section 174 of the Danish Penal Code for having presented an ID issued to another person. At the time of his arrest, he told the police that he had left Turkey two months before to visit his siblings in Denmark, after which he was planning to apply for asylum in Germany. He also explained that he had originally fled Syria where an arrest warrant had been issued against him for desertion from the Syrian army.

On the same day, T was brought before the court for a preliminary statutory hearing where he pleaded guilty to document fraud in violation of section 174 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 14 days in prison and expelled from Denmark with a six-year entry ban.

After having served his sentence, T applied for asylum in Denmark on 9 December 2022. On 28 November 2023, he was granted a residence permit under section 7(1) of the Danish Aliens Act, valid until 28 November 2025.

T was granted leave to lodge an appeal against the judgment even though the period allowed for appeal had expired. During the appeal proceedings, T explained that he fled Syria in 2013-2014 and had stayed in Turkey until 2022. In September 2022, he travelled to Greece and stayed there for about two months. Then, he travelled to Spain where he stayed for 24 hours before setting off through France, Belgium and Germany to Denmark by bus. He had not applied for asylum in other countries before arriving in Denmark.

The High Court held that T’s use of another person’s ID for gaining entry into Denmark is not exempted from punishment under article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention and upheld the District Court’s judgment with the amendment that the entry ban was reduced to four years.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether T could be punished for using another person’s ID, or whether he was exempted from punishment under article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention.

Considering the immigration authorities’ decision to grant T asylum in Denmark, the Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the fact that he had stayed in Turkey and Greece after he left Syria, he must be regarded as coming “directly” from a territory where his life or freedom was threatened, cf. article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention. In the context of the Refugee Convention, it made no difference that he had transited through Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany prior to entering Denmark. The Supreme Court also considered that T fulfilled the other conditions for being covered by article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention.

Against this background, the Supreme Court held that T’s use of another person’s ID for gaining entry into Denmark is covered by article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention, and that his actions are therefore not unlawful (punishable) under section 174 of the Penal Code.

T was, thus, acquitted.

The High Court had reached a different conclusion.