Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
SS-4783/2016-NYK ECLI:DK:NYK:2022:SS0000000641 AI generated

Court dismisses defense protest regarding shared lawyer due to no significant conflict risk found.

Case Number SS-4783/2016-NYK
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the defense lawyer's protest against three defendants sharing a single defender, ruling that no significant risk of conflicting interests existed. While the defense argued an interest conflict arose from the shared representation, the prosecution and the other lawyer maintained no such conflict was present. The court concluded that under the relevant procedural law, the arrangement did not create a foreseeable risk of adverse effects during the main trial.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Retsplejelovens § 734, stk. 2; The court may permit multiple defendants to share a single defender provided there is no significant risk of conflicting interests arising during the proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
shared defender interest conflict defense protest conflicting interests procedural law joint representation risk assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Retsplejelovens § 734, stk. 2
retsplejelovens § 734, stk. 2, hvorfor
AI generated
SS-1406/2013-VLR
Defense lawyer rejected for second defendant due to conflicting interests risk under criminal procedure law.
SS-3607/2024-OLR
Court denies request for additional public defender citing existing counsel's expertise and case complexity.
SS-1674/2013-VIB
Court allows two defendants to share a single defense lawyer in a joint criminal trial.
SS-58/2017-OLR
Appeal dismissed because the defendant had no legal interest in reviewing the lawyer appointment for co-defendants.
SS-21368/2022-KBH
Court dismisses request to exclude defendant from co-defendant's statements due to lack of statutory basis.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Sag om, hvorvidt de tiltalte kan have den samme forsvarer

[DOKUMENT] Afgørelse (2 sider) RETTEN I NYKØBING F.

Den 23. december 2016 kl. 12.00 blev retten sat af Dommer

Retsmødet var offentligt.

Rettens nr. 1-4783/2016 Politiets nr. 1900-76402-00009-14

Anklagemyndigheden mod Tiltalte 1 CPR nr. 1 , Tiltalte 2 CPR nr. 2 , Tiltalte 3 CPR nr. 3 og Tiltalte 4 CPR nr. 4

Ingen var indkaldt eller mødt.

Der fremlagdes:

- Brev af 25. november 2016 fra advokat Jørgen Thomsen,

- e-mail af 2. december 2016 fra advokat Peter Trudsø og

- e-mail af 22. december 2016 fra anklagemyndigheden.

Advokat Jørgen Thomsen, der er forsvarer for Tiltalte 4 , har protesteret mod, at de tiltalte Tiltalte 1 , Tiltalte 2 og Tiltalte 3 har samme forsvarer, da der foreligger interessekonflikt.

Anklagemyndigheden og advokat Peter Trudsø, der er forsvarer for de tiltalte Tiltalte 1 , Tiltalte 2 og Tiltalte 3 , har gjort gældende, at der ikke foreligger interessekonflikt.

Retten afsagde

Kendelse:

Der findes efter de foreliggende oplysninger ikke at være en sådan nærliggende risiko for, at de tiltalte Tiltalte 2 , Tiltalte 3 og Tiltalte 1 har eller vil kunne få modstridende interesser under hovedforhandlingen, jf. retsplejelovens § 734, stk. 2, hvorfor

bestemmes:

Beskikkelsen af advokat Peter Trudsø, som forsvarer for Tiltalte 2 , Tiltalte 3 og Tiltalte 1 , opretholdes.

Std 75286 side 2

Sagen udsat.

Retten hævet.

Dommer