Defense attorney reports TV 2 to police for breach of name prohibition.

Defense lawyer Anders Schønnemann has reported TV 2 to the police on behalf of his client regarding a breach of name prohibition.

TV 2 had previously published articles and a documentary series about a named person who is charged in a large drug case.

In a written response to DR, TV 2 expresses regret that they had not formally had the name prohibition lifted before publishing the documentary about the accused in November 2023, which was first imposed in September 2020.

Defense lawyer Anders Schønnemann stated on P1's program 'Tabloid' that he had a well-founded suspicion that TV 2 had violated the name prohibition, which was lifted for all other suspects in the case but not for his client, who had fled the country before being arrested.

--

About name prohibitions

--

Paragraph 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that "the court may prohibit the public disclosure of a defendant's (accused's) name, title, or address, or the disclosure of their identity in any other way, if the public disclosure would cause unnecessary harm (name prohibition)."

Violations of name prohibitions can result in significant fines for both media and private individuals.

Source: Criminal Procedure Code

The accused was only recently arrested and detained in a foreign country. In connection with the police's desire to extradite the accused to Denmark, defense lawyer Anders Schønnemann, who was recently appointed as the accused's lawyer, discovered that there was already an existing name prohibition against the person from 2020.

TV 2 has now removed or anonymized all of its content about the specific person. However, the accused himself is not satisfied with this and has asked Anders Schønnemann to take the case further and report TV 2 to the police for violating the 2020 name prohibition.

--

TV 2: 'We regret it'

--

Troels Jørgensen, head of TV 2 Documentary, told DR in a written statement that TV 2 regrets not having had the name prohibition lifted before publishing the documentary in November 2023.

--

We had, like all other media, not been aware that a name prohibition existed, and all parties involved in the case, including the prosecution, the accused, and his defense attorney, had all acted as if there was no name prohibition in place.

--

Jørgensen also believes that if TV 2 had requested to have the name prohibition lifted before publishing the documentary, it would have been granted, as the judgments against the other suspects in the case lifted the name prohibition.

--

The accused is charged by the prosecution and several of the now convicted persons were identified as the masterminds of serious crimes. It would go against the sense of justice if he were to be further protected, just because he fled to another country to avoid trial.

--

However, defense lawyer Anders Schønnemann does not accept TV 2's explanation that they were not aware of the name prohibition. It is the responsibility of the media themselves to check if there is a name prohibition in place, he explains on Tabloid.

--

According to the law, it is a negligence offense, where it is TV2 itself, or the journalist, who brings the story, who bears the responsibility for ensuring that they do not violate a name prohibition.

--

Jørgensen also confirmed to DR that after the new court hearing, where a new name prohibition has been imposed against the accused, TV 2 has removed or anonymized the publications that identify Anders Schønnemann's client.

Warning: This article was translated by a Large Language Model, in case of doubt, you can always visit the original source.