The prosecution: “It’s crazy to label the matter as black humor”
Sindri Snær Birgisson in the Supreme Court last Wednesday. mbl.is/Karítas
“We as a society must set boundaries,” said prosecutor Anna Barbara Andradóttir in her argument in the terrorism case in the Supreme Court. She said it would not be a good precedent if it was possible to prepare a terrorist act and then call it a joke without any consequences.
The prosecution is requesting that Sindri Snær Birgisson be convicted of attempted terrorism and that Ísidór Nathansson be convicted of being an accomplice in Birgisson’s crime.
They are also requesting a heavier sentence for the two men’s weapons offenses. Birgisson was sentenced to 24 months in prison and Nathansson to 18 months in prison in the Reykjavík District Court almost a year ago.
Anna Barbara Andradóttir, Prosecutor at the State Prosecutor's Office in the Supreme Court. mbl.is/Karítas
Andradóttir mentioned that the defendants’ defense attorneys are requesting that the charge of attempted terrorism be dismissed. The prosecution rejects that claim and refers the prosecutor to the district court's judgment, which stated that Birgisson had "some kind of evil intent" in mind.
The intent
The intent of the two men was one of the main reasons why they were acquitted in the district, and Andradóttir therefore discussed it at length.
In the appealed judgment, it was stated that the prerequisite for convicting the accused of attempted terrorism was that they had "unequivocally demonstrated the intent in an act that aims or is intended to aim at the commission of the offense".
In that regard, two things could occur, on the one hand, acts of execution and on the other hand, preparatory acts.
It is clear that Birgisson and Nathansson did not commit an act of terrorism, and the question remained whether the prosecution had proven that the men had "unequivocally" been preparing an act of terrorism. The district court considered that this had not been proven.
Unprecedented case
Andradóttir mentioned that there has never been a previous conviction for a violation of Article 100 a. of the General Penal Code, i.e. terrorism.
What makes the case even more special is that the charges are for attempted crimes. Usually, courts deal with crimes that have reached the execution stage, but that does not apply in this case, but rather the preparatory stage.
Andradóttir said that the distinction between preparation and execution is of little importance since it is clear that preparation can lead to criminal liability. She then said that the word unequivocal should not limit criminal liability to preparatory acts.
Danish law considers all levels of intent
The prosecutor mentioned that Danish law is a precedent for Icelandic law and said that all levels of intent are considered in Danish law.
The district court's ruling states that the difference between the wording of the Icelandic and Danish laws is that the latter does not contain the word "unambiguous".
"This may indicate slightly weaker evidentiary requirements for preparatory acts under Danish law in the context of assessing intent," the appealed ruling states.
Living in a certain bubble
Andradóttir said Icelanders live in a certain bubble when it comes to stories of atrocities, but that this should be taken seriously, as examples in our neighboring countries show.
She said it was "crazy to label the matter as the black humor of individuals".
The prosecutor said the two men had demonstrated their intent in action with preparatory acts that are included in 64 counts in the indictment. She said there was legal proof of their intent.
The preparation involved acquiring firearms, ammunition, and firearm components, communicating about terrorism, acquiring material from known terrorists, obtaining material and information on bomb and drone making, studying material related to potential victims of attacks and trying to obtain police uniforms.
Andradóttir reviewed these preparatory activities and said it was important to look at the big picture. Birgisson and Nathansson shook their heads several times at the prosecutor's presentation.
Obvious path
Andradóttir said that the two men's communication did not just take place in one evening. It was a conversation that lasted for many months between adult men who were not based on intellectual disability or mental disability. One was an avowed racist and the other had expressed his hatred of homosexuals.
They had acquired firearms, talked about their plans, expressed their admiration for known terrorists, made shopping lists, intended to acquire police uniforms, and had the ability and skill to 3D print a bomb drone.
She said it was obvious what path such individuals are on.
The only way for the police to step in
Andradóttir said that although the case files do not state where and when Birgisson and Nathansson intended to act, they met a lot during this time and spoke on the phone.
She mentioned that the preparation could take months or years, but that the execution itself could take seconds. There was no way for the police to step in except during the preparation period.
The prosecutor said there was a fine line between the two.
She took as an example a message that Birgisson sent to Nathansson in which he said he had had an AR-15 rifle in Hafnarfjörður but that he could not do much with three bullets.
“What could the police have done much?” asked Andradóttir. Then she asked whether it would have changed the facts of the case if Birgisson had had a bomb or a drone.
Birgisson denied yesterday that he had ever had a firearm in Hafnarfjörður.
Ísidór Nathansson is charged with being an accomplice in Birgisson's crime. mbl.is/Karítas
Encouraged, praised, and sent material
Andradóttir said Nathansson was “all over the place” in the case. He had encouraged, praised, and sent Birgisson material and was involved in the production of firearms.
She then mentioned that he had deleted a considerable amount of material before he was arrested, which the police were able to partially recover. Among other things, a draft manifesto was found.
Nathansson said earlier at the hearing that he had deleted material. He was afraid of being arrested because he knew "what this looked like".
The prosecutor said Nathansson was interested in nationalism, firearms, and murder. Therefore, it was clear what path he was on.
No mistake
Andradóttir said that the partners had certainly talked about other things during the period in question, but the defense has criticized that the communication was cut and taken out of context.
"When does a joke stop being a joke?" asked the prosecutor, saying that the men were full of hatred and prejudice and talked about killing people. She said that there was no evidence that their communication was a joke.
Andradóttir then mentioned that extremist organizations had contacted Nathansson. He told about it in the hearing but said he had never participated in anything like that.
She said there had been no foul play on the part of the men and that the police had prevented atrocities by arresting them.
Said Birgisson was arrogant
Andradóttir said many things in their statements did not match the evidence in the case.
She described Birgisson as arrogant. He had belittled the police's work methods and had made twists and turns in his testimony.
The prosecutor explained that curiosity for entertainment does not stand up to scrutiny.
Severity of punishment placed in the court's assessment
Finally, Andradóttir cited Danish judgments where defendants had been less advanced in their preparation.
She said those judgments can be used as guidance.
The prosecutor placed it in the court's assessment to determine the severity of the sentence. She mentioned that people abroad had been sentenced to up to 15 years in prison, but said that the prosecution considers this a very harsh punishment.
