Gå til sidens indhold

Højesteret

14 maj 2020

Højesteret

Possession of weapons in home and expulsion

Possession of sawn-off shotgun with ammunition in home was not covered by Section 192a of the Danish Penal Code

Case no. 123/2019
Judgment delivered on 6 December 2019

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T had been found guilty of possession of a sawn-off, fully functional shotgun with ammunition in his home. The case before the Supreme Court concerned whether the offence was covered by Section 192a(1)(1) of the Danish Penal Code on possession of weapons under particularly aggravating circumstances, or whether it was covered by Section 10(1) of the Danish Firearms Act. The Supreme Court was also asked to consider the issue of expulsion.

T had kept the sawn-off shotgun with ammunition in a bag under a sink in his room at a home for young people at risk. The room was locked, and only he and the staff at the home had a key. There was no information on any affiliation or conflict with a criminal environment, and he had no criminal record.

Based on an overall assessment, the Supreme Court did not find that there was a sufficient basis for holding that T’s possession of the sawn-off shotgun with ammunition should be regarded as having posed an immediate danger of the weapon being used to endanger others. The offence was thus not covered by Section 192a of the Penal Code, but was to be considered under Section 10(1) of the Firearms Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

T was born in Denmark and had lived here his entire life, except for a brief period of time. His father and two sisters were also in Denmark. He had no close relatives in Iraq, where he had only been very briefly. He was a student and also had a job in a supermarket at the time when he was detained in connection with this case. He had no criminal record, and he was 18 years old when the crime was committed. The Supreme Court found that, in these circumstances, expulsion would be a disproportionate restriction of his right to respect for his private life and, thus, contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claim for expulsion was thus dismissed.

The High Court had reached a different conclusion.