Fine issued to photo journalist after traffic accident

Case no. 39/2020
Judgment delivered on 1 October 2020

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

In December 2017, photo journalist T was present at the scene of an accident, reporting and taking photos of the incident. The High Court found T guilty of being inside the police cordon set up at the scene, getting in the way of the ambulance services and refusing to obey orders to move. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had misapplied Section 41(2) of the Danish Emergency Management Act, and whether convicting T for contravening Section 41(2) infringed T's right to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court held, among other things, that Section 41(2) contains no condition requiring barricade tape or similar marking to consider an area to be cordoned off. An area may be cordoned off – as in the present case – by parking emergency vehicles with blue flashing beacons around an incident scene to show that entry past that point is prohibited.

The Supreme Court stated that the restrictions imposed on T as a photo journalist covering the accident violated his right to freedom speech as recognised in Article 10(1) ECHR. However, the restrictions were in accordance with the law, had a legitimate purpose and were proportionate. The Supreme Court gave importance to the fact that the High Court on the evidence had considered that T had impeded the ambulance services trying to save the victim at the scene, and that no evidence had been produced to support the claim that T was not able to do his job as a photo journalist from positions outside the cordoned-off area. Against this background, the Supreme Court agreed that T was guilty of contravening section 41(2) as interpreted in light of Article 10 ECHR.

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence of a fine of DKK 3,000 and agreed that there was no basis for remitting the fine.

The Supreme Court, thus, reached the same conclusion as the High Court.