It doesn´t make sense that the two judges have 1 1/2 votes each and that vote cast in favour of PM overrules the other.
I have always seen the Danish judicial system to be swift, fair and just - not here!
Me too, SATA, and I think I've misled everybody by just using the Ekstra Bladet report. I just looked at the BT one from yesterday, which I didn't see before, and you will be able to make better sense of it but it appears that they are talking about one of the three 'lay judges' dropping out and the legal judges remain at three. I realise that they did say that in the EB report but it wasn't clear in the translation. This is the Google translate version of the BT report, so it's also not entirely clear:
Although the theory may affect how the distribution of the judges may affect the case's decision, Østre Landsret's appeal against Peter Madsen continues with only two laymen.
'This is what the judge Jan Uffe Rasmussen told Wednesday in the Eastern District Court.
"This means that each of the remaining judges receives one-and-a-half votes so that there is still equality in the college," said the President.
Rasmussen refers to the technicality that judges and legal judges - ie judges who have read law - have equal votes in order to determine the sentence for a convicted person.
According to Jan Uffe Rasmussen, the reason for the verdict's decay is that he has been employed by a board. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, you may not be a judge if you are employed by a ministry's department or have a senior position in an authority under a ministry.
The judicial panel of the Østre Landsret shall only decide what sentence Peter Madsen shall have. The perpetrator has chosen to accept the city court's decision on the debt issue.
The prosecutor's office demands the same punishment as in the city court, prison on lifetime. Madsen himself goes for a time penalty.
In criminal cases, if the court's members disagree, it is the majority that is crucial.
However, if the number of votes ends, for example three voices for life and three for a time penalty, then the result is most favorable to the defendant.
The two remaining judges will only be able to vote, so Peter Madsen should not be sentenced to life in prison.
Should Madsen be granted a lifetime, at least one of the two laymen must vote for at least two of the judges. This would give a result of 3.5 votes for lifetime and 2.5 against.
If both laymen vote for lifetime, it will require at least one of the judges to vote for. It would give a result of four votes for life and two votes against.
They are expected to drop them on Friday this week.'