The prosecution has chosen to drop the section both in cases where a person has already been convicted under 81d in the city court, and in future cases. It informs the authority in a press release on Friday.
It happens after it on Wednesday for the second time failed to get a judge in the Eastern High Court to convict a person under the section and increase the sentence.
On Wednesday, 31-year-old Nanna Skov Høpfner was sentenced to 60 days in prison for participating in the run-up on 9 January. She was acquitted of a string of more serious charges, and the court at the same time refused to use 81d. In the city court, the sentence was two years.
She also avoids getting her case before the Supreme Court.
This is stated by Attorney General Jan Reckendorff, after the prosecution has assessed the case.
– In two judgments – in contrast to the district court – the High Court has now ruled that section 81d cannot be applied solely because criminal offenses are committed in connection with a demonstration dealing with opposition to coronary restrictions.
– A clear legal situation has thus been established in the area, and therefore the prosecution does not consider that there is a need to try to bring the case before the Supreme Court, says Jan Reckendorff in the press release and adds:
– This means that in future no charges will be brought against others under section 81d for their role in connection with the demonstrations that have been against the coronary restrictions, says Jan Reckendorff.
In May, the district court refused to convict a 24-year-old man under the section. He was sentenced to five months in prison – from 15 to 10 months.
The cases are all the result of a demonstration that developed into unrest on 9 January in Copenhagen. Here, 16 officers were hit by objects such as cans, fireworks, bottles and stones.
Other subsequent demonstrations also threw accusations at protesters in attendance.
Judgment has been handed down in 11 demo cases at the Copenhagen City Court, where the court was to rule on 81d. In eight of the cases, the convict received an increased sentence.
In two of the eight cases, the High Court has already ruled that the sentence should be harsher than in similar cases. In the remaining six appeals, the section has been fished out of the indictment prior to the hearing in the Eastern High Court.
The section deals with whether “the offense has a background in or connection with the covid-19 epidemic in Denmark” and can double the sentence.