– It is not cykeltyverier, it’s all about, says the prosecutor to the high court on the case against the former head of PET.
Four months of unconditional imprisonment is not enough. A former boss of the PET should be a harder punishment.
Such is the claim of the deputy state prosecutor Jacob Berger Nielsen Thursday, in The high Court, which must determine whether Jacob Scharf revealed secret information about the PET and broke his secrecy in the book “Seven years to a PET”.
Landsdommere and lay judges shall also decide whether Jakob Scharf with his statements risked to weaken the PET’s ability to prevent and solve terrorist and other serious crimes, points out the prosecutor.
Thursday briefs he right about what the PET is put into the world. The security and maintenance of order in society must be protected.
– We are socially seen up on the big chainring, when it comes to the task. It is not cykeltyverier, it is all about. It is our democracy and social order, PET’s task is to protect, says Jacob Berger Nielsen.
– It is a very special institution in society, he adds.
If information about the working methods, knowledge and partners will come forward in public, the PET will be weakened.
– If the PET does not get the information, there is obviously a risk that the PET can not do its job effectively – namely, to take care of all of us together, say the deputy attorney general issued.
One of his points is that “special regard to confidentiality related to the intelligence business”.
Previously, the Copenhagen city Court to a high degree on the statement that there is not much space to comment on the PET. There are several examples of this in the judgment, which was handed down in January.
Even when Jacob Scharf in the book just a bit to the information already has been publicly, he was found guilty.
In terrorsagen from Glasvej in Copenhagen, it was already mentioned in the public hearings, that a suspect’s trunk was searched secretly in the Copenhagen Airport.
In the book, he notes that the passport control is a good opportunity to look in detail on people, and to PET under the secret home searches in the airport usually will be busy to look in people’s hand luggage and electronic items.
This is confidential and may impair the PET’s ability to prevent, investigate, or pursue offences, because the so-called those targeted can be imagined that would change the behavior, it sounded in byrettens judgment.
another place in the book comes Scharf with a report on a meeting with an eccentric chief a place on The Arabian Peninsula. PET-the boss got the show of the big pythons in a variety of terrariums.
This is a criminal offence, because he thereby gained confidential information about a PET’s collaborators, says in the indictment.
Here was the district court on the verge to pass judgement.
in General is it across the border to say anything about partners. Only because it is not with sufficient certainty has been proven that the eccentric director of security from a partner, the district court decided to frifinde at this point.
the district Court dismissed the action in four of the 28 passages, which are mentioned in the indictment.
The high Court is expected to issue its ruling until February.
/ritzau/
