Pre-trial detention pending judgment in rape case

Case no. 66/2025

Order made on 12 February 2026    

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

On 22 September 2024, T was detained after having been arrested and charged with, among other things, aggravated assault and several counts of rape. On 10 March 2025, the District Court found him guilty of four counts of rape, psychological abuse, repeated offences of aggravated assault and driving while disqualified. The District Court sentenced him to imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months. T appealed the judgment at the sentencing.

On 8 May 2025, the High Court scheduled the main hearing for 1 and 2 December 2026. On 4 June 2025, the High Court ordered that T should be remanded in custody during the appeal proceedings. 

T brought the High Court’s custody order before the Supreme Court, claiming release. In that connection, T claimed, among other things, that the conditions for pre-trial detention had not been met, and that detaining him pending a decision in the appeal proceedings infringed his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as foreseen in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court stated that in light of the facts presented regarding the gravity of his offences, including the nature of the crime, law enforcement considerations meant that T could not be released. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court had sentenced T to 3 years and 6 months in prison, and with the delay until the main hearing, he would have served approx. 2 years and 2 months at the time of the judgment in the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, based on the information available in the case, keeping T in pre-trial detention pending judgment in the appeal proceedings was not in contravention of the proportionality considerations set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act, and that the conditions for pre-trial detention in said Act were thus met.

The Supreme Court went on to note that, pursuant to section 843a of the Act, a court of law must advance the proceedings as fast as required and possible considering the nature of the case to ensure that the proceedings may be completed within a reasonable time. The main hearing must be conducted as fast as possible if the defendant has been remanded in custody. In the present case, where the main hearing was scheduled far in the future, and where T was in pre-trial detention pending judgment in the appeal proceedings, the High Court should continuously assess whether it was possible to bring forward the main hearing.