No basis for obtaining information from the defendant’s relatives etc.

Case no. 92/2021
Order made on 25 February 2022

T
vs.
The Prosecution Service

T was charged on a number of counts, including assaulting staff at a supporting housing facility and robbery. The Department of Prisons and Probation attempted to carry out a psychiatric examination pursuant to section 808 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, but T refused to subject himself to it.

He was later urgently placed at a child and adolescent psychiatry centre. According to information from the time of admission, T had been diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder and had been admitted due to worsening of his psychotic symptoms.

The Prosecution Service then requested that T undergo a psychiatric examination as an outpatient, and that an order be made that the forensic psychiatric clinic could contact relatives or other private individuals in order to obtain information for use in the psychiatric examination.

T refused to participate in a psychiatric examination.

The case before the Supreme Court concerned, firstly, whether there was a basis for subjecting T to an outpatient psychiatric examination – or whether an examination of his general personal affairs and background, which T now agreed to undergo, should first be carried out, and secondly, whether there was a basis for allowing T’s relatives or other private individuals to be contacted in order to obtain information for the purpose of the psychiatric examination.

In relation to the first question, the Supreme Court found that it was of importance for the decision to be made in the case that T was subjected to an outpatient psychiatric examination, and the Prosecution Service’s request to that effect was therefore upheld.

However, in relation to the second question, the Supreme Court concluded that the conditions for doing so were not met based on the information available in the case. In this connection, the Supreme Court referred to the fact that it had not been specified who would be contacted and what information was to be obtained from these individuals for use in the psychiatric examination. The Prosecution Service’s request was thus not upheld.

The High Court had reached a different conclusion.