Icelandic Prosecutors' Abuse of Power
The Reykjavík District Prosecutor’s Office wasted millions of taxpayer funds to persecute a man who danced with a girl at a wedding,
The Reykjavík District Court recently acquitted a man of charges under Article 199 of the Icelandic Criminal Code No. 19/1940 for “sexual harassment” and violations of child protection laws. The man was acquitted of all claims in the case, but as Icelandic journalist Frosti Logason pointed out in his show Harmageddon, some media outlets struggled to accurately report the verdict.
The media outlets Vísir and DV portrayed the acquittal in a way that, as Mr. Logason put it, “‘yet another sleazy guy got away with!’” instead of the headline reflecting the judge’s decision—that the man was acquitted because, as the evidence, including video recordings, showed that “the girl lied.”
In addition to the outrage that the Reykjavík District Prosecutor’s Office wasted millions of taxpayer funds to persecute a man who, according to witnesses and all evidence in the case, danced with a girl at a wedding, there are other issues worth discussing regarding this case and Article 199 of the Icelandic Criminal Code.
One does not have to be a lawyer to question why, in this case, charges were brought under Article 199; it suffices to be able to read and understand Icelandic:
Icelandic Criminal Code, Article 199: “Sexual harassment includes, among other things, stroking, groping, or fondling another person’s genitals or breasts, inside or outside clothing, as well as symbolic behavior or language that is highly offensive, repeated, or likely to cause fear.”
According to the indictment, the man was accused of “sexual harassment… by having… kissed X on the cheek… and later on the dance floor, stroked her buttocks outside her clothing and pressed her against himself against her will…”
First, the defendant was charged for conduct that is not illegal, not under the provisions cited in the indictment, nor under any other laws. A “kiss” is not criminal conduct according to Article 199 of the Criminal Code, nor is “pressing” someone “against oneself.” “Buttocks” are neither “genitals” nor “breasts.”
Secondly, the prosecutor appears not to understand the word “harassment,” nor does the judge, who made no comment about the application of article 199 in this case. The meaning of the word “áreitni” or “harassment” is the same in Icelandic as in English; that is, the word refers to conduct that is repeated .
Icelandic Thesaurus Dictionary (Þórbergur Þórðarson, 1985): áreita: pursue, harass… bully… not leave alone.
Article 199 of the Criminal Code regarding “sexual harassment” obviously applies to repeated conduct, not a single act.
Thirdly, a case like this raises questions about whether Iceland can be considered a state that respects the rule of law. Although Article 70 of the Icelandic Constitution stipulates that everyone is entitled to “a fair trial within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial court” regarding their rights and obligations or any criminal charges against them (i.e., “due process”), Icelandic citizens do not enjoy protection against the abuse of state power through the application of legal provisions that fail to meet the fundamental requirements of criminal law for clear penal statutes: “In criminal law, laws are invalid under the ‘void for vagueness doctrine’” if they are not sufficiently clear.
Laws are generally considered invalid due to vagueness “if they mandate punishment but do not clearly specify what or what kind of conduct is punishable and/or what is required of citizens… if they do not define the offense… in a way that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [if] their wording allows for… and encourages arbitrary… actions by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated: ‘People of ordinary intelligence should not have to guess at the meaning of a legal provision.’ Such laws grant prosecutors and police unchecked discretionary power, thus inviting arbitrary and selective enforcement.”
The phrasing of Article 199 of the Icelandic Criminal Code, “…among other things,” is typical of legal provisions that grant the state “unchecked discretionary power.” It is up to the state to decide what conduct falls under “among other things.” Citizens have no idea what conduct is punishable, which, as the court pointed out, is unacceptable:
“Vague laws violate important values. Firstly… [since] people have the freedom to navigate between lawful and unlawful conduct, laws must give people of ordinary intelligence a fair opportunity to know what is prohibited so they can act accordingly. Secondly… laws must set clear standards for those who enforce them. Vague laws delegate… important policy matters to [prosecutors] and judges… and invite subjective, ad hoc resolutions, which risk arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement and application [of the laws].”
It would take too long to discuss the investigation of this case, which is a disgrace to the prosecution and raises questions about whether Article 70 of the Icelandic Constitution regarding “a fair trial within a reasonable time” was violated.
It is unacceptable that the definition of punishable conduct is left to the discretion of the prosecution; no expertise, however, is required to assess whether it is “reasonable” to have a criminal charge hanging over one’s head for nearly three years.