On fees and reimbursement of travel expenses

Case no. 75/2025

Order made on 17 March 2026 

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

The case concerns lawyer A’s request for prior approval of a trip to London as part of his appointment as public defence counsel for T.

On 6 December 2022, T, who resided in England, was charged with aggravated fraud.

On 13 February 2023, 21 August 2023, 30 October 2023, 7 December 2023 and 2 May 2024, lawyer A had received prior approval from the District Court of Lyngby for trips to London for the purpose of, among other things, going through the case files with T. The Court had thereby granted prior approval that lawyer A was entitled to fees and reimbursement of travel expenses in connection with those trips abroad.

On 5 and 20 December 2024, lawyer A again requested prior approval for a two-day trip to London for the purpose of going through the case files with T, which the District Court and the High Court refused. 

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether not granting lawyer A’s request of December 2024 for prior approval of a new trip to London was in compliance with T’s right of access to documents and right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court stated that, according to the information provided, the case comprised over 40,000 pages of material. A had been questioned by the English authorities in cooperation with the Danish police in March 2024 in England, and lawyer A’s fees for reviewing the case files and for attending client meetings prior to the questioning, being present during the questioning and a client meeting to review the report on the questioning in England had been approved. He had also been reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in connection with attending the meetings and questioning. 

At the time of lawyer A’s request for prior approval of his trips to London on 5 and 20 December 2024, no charges had been brought against T, and no further investigative measures were planned. The police and the Prosecution Service stated that the case depended on the police’s ongoing investigation and the receipt and review of a significant volume of additional material from abroad.

In these circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no grounds for granting lawyer A’s request of December 2024 for prior approval of a new trip to London, and that there were no grounds for finding that this constituted a violation of T’s right of access to the case file under the Danish Administration of Justice Act or to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.