Støjberg’s lawyer in the Supreme Court: Full-toned political hypocrisy

– She denies that she has violated the Ministerial Accountability Act. She did not issue a service order on 10 February 2016 or later to initiate any illegal accommodation scheme, says René Offersen.

He goes on to say that Støjberg had no reason at any time to intervene, as she had no reason to believe that the administration was illegal.

In the case, Inger Støjberg is accused of having in 2016 initiated and maintained an illegal instruction to separate minor asylum seekers from their spouse or cohabitant without an individual assessment.

René Offersen also spends his speaking time emphasizing the actions of the traditionally governing parties. He points out that they have not changed their position on the separation. He refers to a joint statement from the Social Democrats, the Left and the Conservatives.

Here it is noted that the intention of the separation is right – but that it has been legally wrong.

– Inger Støjberg has a hard time with the governing parties taking the policy with one hand and making it their own, but with the other hand sending her to the Supreme Court.

– She experiences it as full-blown political hypocrisy, it sounds from the defender.

The trial is underway at the fourth hearing on Tuesday, and the first three days have passed with the submission of the accusers.

They have read out a large number of emails and notes from the time up to and after Inger Støjberg announced in a press release on 10 February 2016 that she had asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put an end to minors in the asylum system being able to live with a spouse or cohabitant.

It is clear to the prosecution that the press release was an illegal instruction, prosecutor Jon Lauritzen stated when he ended his submission on Tuesday morning.

– The Danish Immigration Service perceived the instruction as an instruction and acted accordingly, he said.

The prosecutor also used the occasion to reject that a note whether there should be an individual assessment of the couples should matter.

– In the opinion of the prosecution, the memorandum of 2 February lost its significance after 9 February, when work continued on a scheme without exceptions, Lauritzen said.

Source: The Nordic Page





Related Posts