Different interpretation options at the courts
OhDisplay shown that intention in the work. The terrorist case and the conditions of experimental responsibility The name of Hafsteinn Dan Kristjánsson, a law professor at RU, is called in the journal Lögrétta recently. There he deals with paragraph 1. Article 20 hgl. However, they were convicted of arms offenses.
The experimental provision states that it must be unequivocally shown in action to commit a violation. Hafstein’s question was therefore: Why is it clear? What needs to be unequivocal? There are three advantages that are possible and have been pointed out. First, there are tougher evidence, ie it needs to prove even more. Secondly, there is a stronger intention, ie, not all levels of intent are considered, but the intention can be at different levels. According to these options, the highest level of intent must be available. Third, the advantage refers to the objective acts, such as that the work itself has to testify of intent and not vaguely but unequivocally. « So here are three interpretation options that are possible and that is why this attracted my academic interest, » says Hafsteinn in a conversation with Morgunblaðið.
Not build on the third option
Hafsteinn says that the district court seems to emphasize the first interpretation. « It indicates that this intention has had to prove more than usual, which since then did not work out. » However, national law seems to have emphasized the other option « and it puts it so that the conceptual attitude of perpetrators in connection with such preparatory activities must be narrower or stricter ». He says Landsrett seems to be based on the fact that more needs to come than « just to have intent. It has to be somehow stringent, even the highest level of intention, something like that and it did not work out.
In this article, I say that important arguments are needed to build on the third interpretation option, that this is the work as such that needs to carry this unequivocally. This therefore does not directly refer to stricter intention or hardened evidence. So the emphasis in the legal basis itself, ie, which the assessment then depends on, that it should be different but seems to have been in the district court and the national law, « says Hafsteinn, adding: » does not result from the legal provision. Then Hafsteinn says that the same evidence should not be made as usual as in criminal cases regarding this.
Is important to know
If the Supreme Court addresses the matter, could they justify the third interpretation?
« Yes, or then confirmed one of the other two. Is the first time trying to have alleged terrorism. Hafsteinn mentions that if the Supreme Court decides not to take the case for them, « we do not get this example from the nation’s supreme court ».
Little has been tried on the experimental provision in the Icelandic judicial history. Hafsteinn mentions in his article three reviews. He does not discuss in detail what the provision entails. « This also seems to be the first verdict, at least I have seen, since the verdict is wondering what this means. » Asked if Parliament should clarify the provision better, Hafsteinn says it is considered, along with possible exemplary Supreme Court judgment. He says that if the Supreme Court addresses the matter and clearly explain the matter clearly and convincingly, then the law does not probably have to be amended, « unless the legislature just disagrees because these are the requirements ». Hafsteinn says that if the Supreme Court does not take the matter and Parliament believes that this issue must be resolved, the legislature can certainly change the provision. In the coming weeks, it will be revealed whether the Supreme Court will take the case.
Log in to read forward
Access to this full -length news requires a subscription.
To read it, you need to log in.
Don’t you have user access? Go to the registration.
Get a subscription to read on
You are in regulated that … But do not subscribe.
Access to this full -length article requires a subscription to Morgunblaðið, electronic access such as a weekly pass or a special subscription to the relevant content category on mbl.is.
