A recent case involving multiple allegations of sexual assault has raised serious concerns over the handling of such matters by prosecutors and police in Denmark. Maria Dover, a victim, expresses frustration over the lack of judicial action in her situation.
Background of the Case
In a troubling development, experts criticize the East Jutland Police and the Danish prosecution service for what they believe is a significant failure in handling a series of sexual assault allegations, including one made by Maria Dover. After receiving a rejection from the prosecutor’s office, Maria, like at least four other women, reported the same man for sexual assault. With a police case file that spans two binders and consists of approximately 700 pages, it is alarming to learn that the case was closed without going to court.
Maria Dover filed her report in 2021 against a man who was later linked to multiple sexual assault claims dating back to 2013. Documentation reviewed by DR shows that this individual was also accused of assaults in 2015, in addition to numerous allegations filed by other women between 2020 and 2021. In total, there are eight charges of sexual assault against him recorded in these documents.
Dover’s assessment of the situation remains grim—the prosecutor’s office chose not to advance the case based on differences in testimony between her and the accused. Their rationale included a lack of corroborative evidence that could decisively support one party’s narrative over the other. Thus, with no additional information to warrant pursuing charges, the prosecutor’s office closed the case entirely.
Maria expressed disbelief upon receiving the rejection from the prosecutor’s office. “When I got the denial from the prosecutor, I could hardly live with it,” she stated. The closure of her case highlighted systemic gaps that, in her estimation, failed to hold the accused accountable. To complicate matters, the prosecutor’s office is tasked with reviewing police decisions, but their conclusion mirrored the police’s stance, further deepening Maria’s sense of injustice.
Expert Opinions
Legal experts have swiftly chimed in, asserting that the case should have been tried in court. Birgit Feldtmann, a law professor at Aalborg University, stated, “I wonder why this case was closed.” Experts contend that the fact that the man used a false identity to initiate contact with Maria should have been grounds for further investigation.
Legal findings showed that the complications of the case had escalated after Maria filed her complaint, as investigators identified further victims and evidence. Phillip Møller, a former prosecutor, voiced strong concerns, claiming the case received inadequate examination and labeling the decisions made so far as “careless and hasty.”
Potential Consequences and Criticism of the Prosecution
Møller believes a jury would have placed great importance on the testimonies of five women corroborating each other’s accounts of sexual violence. Notably, the accused had presented himself with a fictitious identity, a tactic recognized by the prosecution but deemed insufficient for a case continuation. He termed the handling of Maria’s case as a reflection of “busyness” and “sloppiness.”
The prosecutor’s office has been criticized not only in Maria’s case but also in several others where experts argue that their failures have broader implications. Møller warns that when a wrong decision is seemingly sanctioned, it undermines public trust in the justice system. This sentiment is echoed by Frederik Waage, a professor of administrative law who remarked on how insufficient investigations allow existing flaws within the system to persist unaddressed.
Jakob Berger Nielsen, a prosecutor, states that due to legal restrictions, he cannot elaborate on individual cases. However, he maintains that the investigations were thorough, implying that the presence of multiple accusations was insufficient to justify charges in this instance.
Nielsen’s assertion that the cumulative circumstances of the bias towards the police’s interpretations are reflected in the final decision has led many to question the effectiveness of the prosecution’s role. The prosecutor emphasized that substantial and new evidence must be present to initiate legal action, pointing out that the grounds for charges were simply inadequate despite the extensive investigative work.
Comparative Cases
Maria Dover is not alone; Danish media previously reported similar incidents where the prosecution’s decisions faced scrutiny. A notable example included a case of an elderly man with a tragic fate resulting from neglect and abuse in a care facility, which later prompted calls for a more robust investigative approach. In cases involving child endangerment and violent offences, experts again raised their voices over inadequate oversight by prosecutors, emphasizing the need for accountability.
The complexities surrounding Maria Dover’s case reflect systemic issues that law experts believe need addressing within the Danish criminal justice system. As these conversations unfold, and the call for a more detailed review of decisions made by the prosecution grows louder, many are left wondering how to ensure justice is served for victims. Denmark’s legal system must ultimately navigate the balance between thorough investigations and the swift handling of cases without compromising the rights of victims or the accused.
It appears that without significant changes in procedures and accountability measures, the specter of injustice will continue to loom over those seeking resolution and closure in their cases of assault and abuse.
