The District Prosecutor has appealed the Reykjavik District Court’s dismissal of the so-called domestic terrorism case to the National Court, Vísir reports. The defence attorney for one of the defendants has expressed his concerns about the impact of the case on his client.
Prosecution silent as National Court deliberates
The District Prosecutor has appealed the Reykjavik District Court’s dismissal of the so-called domestic terrorism case to the National Court (i.e. Landsréttur). The charge, holding that two men in their twenties were planning on carrying out a domestic terrorism attack in Iceland, has been dismissed twice due to limitations. This was confirmed by prosecutor Karl Ingi Vilbergsson, who represents the prosecution, in an interview with Vísir.
According to Karl Ingi, the National Court will now take time to review the case and decide whether to refer the charge back to the district court for substantive processing. He added that the office would not reveal what the next steps would be, should the National Court decide to uphold the dismissal. “We will just have to see what happens,” he observed.
Limitations complicating the work of the defence
The Reykjavík District Court dismissed the case last Monday, October 2, as it believed the case’s limitations hindered the defence in presenting its arguments. Sveinn Andri Sveinsson, defence attorney of Sindri Snær Birgisson, who faces charges in the case along with Ísidór Nathansson, previously told Vísir that he believed it was likely that the prosecution would appeal the dismissal.
Sveinn Andri expressed his concerns regarding the prosecution’s case. “The lives of these young men have been ruined. This case should never have taken this turn if the police had handled it properly, monitored them, and investigated the matter thoroughly and appropriately. It would never have led to prosecution.”
Vísir notes that prosecutors have charged Sindri with planning terrorist acts, while accusing Ísidór of complicity in Sindri’s crimes, alleging he provided assistance and encouragement.
The district court’s dismissal ruling stated clearly that a specific time and place for the intended terrorist acts had not been determined. Similarly, the court ruled that it was unclear whether these intended crimes were to be executed in the near or distant future, while also highlighting the uncertainty regarding the location. Additionally, the number of intended acts was unclear. Furthermore, the court noted that these acts were supposed to target an unspecified group of people.
