Subsequently, several of the audience expressed astonishment that there was no more control over the law among the professional actors in the court.
The witness has been dating one of the two men accused of the murder of Nicoline Plintic Pedersen, who was found strangled and beaten to death in an apartment in Ølby near Køge in July last year.
The witness had stated in advance that due to her mental vulnerability she did not want to give an explanation in a courtroom full of listeners. Therefore, prosecutor Kirsten Jensen demanded that the doors be closed.
She did so with reference to a provision in the law which states that the doors can be closed if it is crucial to shed light on the matter.
What the prosecutor – and the court – were not aware of is that the provision cannot be used in a so-called main hearing. Unless there is a possibility that more people will be charged. And that was not the case.
The journalists present had to point this out. And that got the presiding judge to initiate what might be reminiscent of a legal monopoly with the purpose of getting the doors closed.
Mogens Pedersen first approached the prosecutor and said that she would then have to find another provision. The obvious one was a provision that the doors can be closed if someone will be subjected to unnecessary violation.
That provision is used, for example, in morality cases or in other situations where very private matters must be accounted for.
The prosecutor could not immediately provide arguments that that provision could be applied.
– Then we have to get the witness in and explain why she can not give an explanation, it sounded from Kirsten Jensen.
Mogens Pedersen was quick on the trigger and concluded that then the doors had to be closed, while the witness explained why she wanted doors closed.
That maneuver is usually called double-closed doors. And for the court to decide, parties and press representatives must be allowed to speak. Then the legal judges – there are three of them to vote.
On the whole, the President of the Court seemed determined that the doors should be closed. Among other things, he told reporters.
– There is no reason to subject the witness to unnecessary torture. The press probably does not support that either, it sounded from Mogens Pedersen.
The chairman of the court is flanked by two fellow judges, Signe Borregaard Rasmussen and Marie Sølve Gravsen. Throughout the confusing process, they addressed the presiding judge, who was then told.
– Then we close the doors.
Maybe it was a narrative and an expression of the decision he wanted to reach. At any rate, he quickly corrected himself after a remark from the two colleagues.
– Then we go out to vote, was the new sentence.
The three were gone for a long time. When they returned, no order was issued for double-closed doors. Mogens Pedersen instead sent the prosecutor out to hear if the witness would explain why she wanted closed doors.
The witness would not. But a woman who is employed as a contact person for the witness was called instead. She explains about the fragile psyche of the witness.
The three judges reached a solution in which the representatives of the press were allowed to stay in the courtroom, while the 20-30 listeners in the courtroom were sent outside.
The witness, who was all about, testified for just over two hours. By and large, she did not contribute new information that has not already been presented in the case.
Source: The Nordic Page
