100. årgang, 2013

Marts 2013 - 100. årgang Nr. 1

1. Peter Garde:
Scandinavian Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1913-2013

This article summarizes the first one hundred years of the Journal’s history, mentions its most important authors and articles, and attempts to draw out its main characteristics. For many years the Journal has followed issues surrounding the various reforms to the Nordic penal codes and highlighted currents in criminal policy. In later years it also began to map out the (now triennial) meetings of the associations of penal law and criminal science.

2. Lars Holmberg
Police use of pepper spray in Denmark

This paper discusses the use of pepper spray (OC-spray) in the Scandinavian police forces with a special emphasis on Denmark. Since the spray’s introduction to Denmark in 2008, it has been used about 1450 times annually. The use of pepper spray does not seem to have caused any substantial reduction in the use of other kinds of force by police, as was predicted in the trial preceding its introduction to the force. A limited comparison with Norway suggests that the Danish police use pepper spray far more frequently than their Norwegian counterparts. This may be due to the fact that the rules surrounding pepper spray use are more lenient in Denmark than Norway.

3. Stefan Holgerson:
The process of building facades within the Swedish police – An analysis of the the displayed image compared to the real outcome

This study examines the ways in which the Stockholm Police Department presents its results. The image the police display corresponds badly with actual outcomes. To satisfy external expectations, the priority seems to be on creating a facade of a well-functioning organization rather than providing an accurate depiction of results. This tendency is not unique to the police. It is a strategy that can be attractive to adapt, but has several negative long term effects. Most notably, it makes it more difficult to develop good and effective police work.

4. Pernille Boye Koch
From Wamberg to a new form of intelligence oversight – An analysis of the current Danish reform

Denmark has never had an explicit law regulating the activities of its Intelligence Service, and its democratic control and oversight instruments have not been reformed for decades. Successive Danish governments have explained that important reports from expert commissions must be made before further action can be taken. Therefore, official report Number 1529 from the Wendler Pedersen Commission – including a new bill relating to the Danish Intelligence Service – is of crucial interest. This article analyses the new legal framework and the body established to oversee it in order to determine whether the reform actually strengthens existing control of the Intelligence Service. The report’s conclusion is mainly negative regarding this question. The new legal framework is too vague to establish effective boundaries and in some instances actually widens the power of the Intelligence Service. Furthermore, the institution overseeing the new framework only has power to monitor a limited spectrum of the Intelligence Service’s activities. Additionally, it can only take random checks and has no authority to make binding decisions. Pernille Boye Koch is Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Southern Denmark. Last year she began work on a research project on the democratic control of the Intelligence Service. This article represents one of the first steps in her project, which will ultimately focus on Scandinavian, European and international aspects.

Juli 2013- 100. årgang Nr. 2

1. Grom Toftegaard Nielsen:
The quantum of sentences in criminal environmental prosecutions in Denmark

Denmark adopted its first Law on the protection of the environment, with its own rule on sentencing, in 1973. This rule has since been developed through a number of amendments to the Law, with the aim of imposing stricter punishment. Prosecutions are typically brought against commercial undertakings, and these have concerned heavier fines either by reference to the harm done to the environment or to the undertaking's profits from infringing the Law. In many cases local environmental authorities have been reluctant to enforce the Law strictly against local undertakings, and the authorities have found it difficult to calculate the profits derived from infringements. The author's study in 1995 showed a significantly higher level of punishment than his corresponding study in 2005. After the latter study, in 2008 there was an amendment to the Law and the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidelines considerably increasing the demands for punishment to be made by prosecuting authorities. This initiative appears to have had an effect, though there have been, as yet, few reported cases

2. Heidi Nummela:
Sanctions and other consequenses for environmental offences in Finland.

Acting in defiance of certain sections of an environmental law, where there is damage or the risk of damage to the environment or to health, is behavior criminalized in the Penal Code of Finland. All offences which carry prison sentences are covered by the Penal Code. The most serious offences against the environment are included in chapters 48 and 48a of the Penal Code. In respect of these offences penal scales vary from a fine to a maximum of six years’ imprisonment, depending on the seriousness of the criminal act in question. Environmental laws have also penalty sanctions for minor violations. These sanctions may follow merely from the simple act of breaking the law without any reference to consequences. Corporate criminal liability allows for fines to be imposed on companies. It must be proven that the criminal action has been committed in the course of the company’s operations. Who has actually committed the crime does not necessarily need to be identified or proven. A corporate fine is usually imposed in addition to the punishment of the individual offender or offenders. The level of the corporate fine can be anything from 850 to 850.000 euro. The Penal Code chapter 10 requires that all proceeds of the crime shall be ordered forfeit to the state. This applies to all the crimes committed. If this were not the case – especially in environmental crimes – it might well be worthwhile taking the occasional punishments every now and then because the penalties in the area are actually quite small, usually fines. The Criminal Code, Chapter 10, also requires that instruments of a crime shall be ordered forfeit to the state. If an item or piece of property cannot be forfeited, a forfeiture of equal value may be imposed.

3. Hans Tore Høviskland:
Heavier sentences for environmental crimes in Norway

Environmental crime in Norway is usually divided into two categories: offences against the inner environment (work environment) and the outer environment (pollution, nature and heritage crime). From 1990 until today the sentencing framework has been raised and the threat of punishment intensified with regards to more than 15 crucial environmental laws. In addition, more stringent rules have been put in place in a number of areas, such as the general clause on environmental crime in the penal code § 152 b, the heritage law, the Svalbard environmental law, the new Planning and Building Act, and the Nature Diversity Act of 19 June 2009. In this article I will look more closely at this development, which gives the overall impression of a branch of jurisprudence that has been, more than usual, the focus of the legislators’ attention. This has been followed up by legal custom and usage, leading to stricter penalties than only a short while ago, for environmental crimes. In this article I will go through the 14 most crucial Supreme Court sentences in relation to environmental crime, showing this development from 2001. In several of these sentences the Supreme Court has expressed that environmental legislation has tightened considerably, and this is followed by legal custom and usage.

4. Per Ole Träskman:
The Swedish Environmental Criminal Law – a fierce hawk without beak?

Abstract: It is not self evident that also criminal political means shall be used in the actions which have the aim to realize a sustainable environmental development. It is not so easy to carry out all the measures, which in general are considered to be crucial and necessary in an active and efficient environmental policy with simultaneous respect for the basic principles of penal law. Despite of this the necessity to have also a rational and efficient environmental criminal law is strongly emphasized. The article describes the penal provisions and sanctions included in the Swedish Environmental Law and the enforcement of these provisions. The Swedish government and the relevant Swedish authorities have repeatedly expressed the opinion that the control of the environmental criminality shall be a prioritized task not only for the environmental administration but also for the police authorities, the prosecutors and the crime controlling authorities in general. What has been stressed is that the preventive work must be more efficient, that the risk for detection of a committed environmental offence must be higher. The pretrial investigation must be ameliorated and the criminal procedure in general must be more efficient. The conclusion is that Swedish legislation on environmental crimes is – also in an international comparison- quite advanced. But despite of this there are still also good reasons for criticism.

5. Ragnheiður Bragadóttir:
Sentencing for environmental offences in Iceland

Abstract In Icelandic law, penal provisions are contained in the Penal Code, or in various special criminal statutes. The Penal Code, Act no. 19/1940 contains, with the provisions on individual types of crime, provisions of general applicability in the context of criminal offences, sentencing being one of them. The Penal Code contains provisions which are not enacted with a view to offences against the environment, but might nevertheless be applied on account of such offences. Besides there is a provision in the Penal Code, on serious offences against the environment, enacted in 1999. No comprehensive legislation on matters of environmental impact has been enacted in Iceland, similar to the Acts on the environment in the other Nordic countries. Instead there are some statute law on environmental matters. They may be divided into the following categories: Acts on nature conservation, Acts protecting wildlife, Acts on protection against land, water and air pollution, Act in respect of prevention of marine pollution. Offences against these Acts are punishable by fines or imprisonment of up to two or four years. Some of the Acts make legal persons as well as natural persons criminally liable. Only few judgments have been passed where these provisions have been at issue and sentences for the offences are usually lenient.