Danish Supreme Court upholds verdict that criminalises poverty

Authours: Elisabet Kass and Ana-Maria Cioraru, Kompasset Kirkens Korshær

In February 2022, the first begging case was tried in the Danish Supreme Court. A Lithuanian citizen was convicted of begging at the Copenhagen Central Station. As it was the third time the police subpoenaed[1] him for begging, he was sentenced to serve 60 days in prison and was given a deportation order with a 6-year entry ban. The Court decided to uphold the verdict and stated that the sentence was not a violation of his human rights.[2]

In court, it was explained that the man had been holding a white paper cup asking pedestrians for a few coins. He was not being aggressive but he behaved in such a way that passers-by could not avoid noticing him. The police were not acting on behalf of a complaint but observed the man on their own initiative for five minutes, which sufficed to charge him for begging.

Whilst begging has been illegal in Denmark for more than 100 years, the Danish Parliament introduced a tightening of the laws on both begging and rough sleeping in summer 2017. Under section 197 in the criminal code, it states that begging is illegal for those who have already received a warning and is punishable with up to six months in prison. In the summer of 2017 sections 2 and 3 were added, which state that (2) one is punished without a warning when the offence has been committed in a pedestrian street, at stations, in or near supermarkets or on public transport and that (3) this should be regarded as an aggravating circumstance.[3]

Though the stated purpose of the addition to the law was to prevent and discourage “begging behaviour which creates discomfort”, there is no differentiation made between aggressive, active, or silent begging. First-time offenders will be punished with 14 days in prison.

The tightening of the laws was introduced as a result of a tense political debate on the visibility of migrants experiencing homelessness in Copenhagen. 

In the initial submission for the law change proposition, Minister of Justice Søren Pape Poulsen, begins his statement in Parliament by declaring that 

“[t]he government wishes to take action against travellers of a foreign origin, who camp in public places, i.e. in parks and public streets, and who, by staying there, create dangerous situations and nuisance for both passers-by and residents. [...] Some of the people who stay in “danger-creating” camps support themselves for instance, by collecting bottles and begging, and it is proposed on this basis, as well as in the face of aggressive begging, that action be taken. [...] The purpose of the proposal is, thus, to ensure that the police get better opportunities for more effective action against the type of begging mentioned before. At the same time, this sends a signal to potential travellers and others that “danger - creating” begging leads to imprisonment”.[4]

In the ensuing debate, the word Roma was used more than 50 times, which made clear that it was the so-called “Roma-camps” that should be demolished, and that they specifically wanted to stop Roma from coming to Denmark to beg. In fact, there was a long discussion on how to target this particular ethnic group while protecting Danish people experiencing homelessness from the strict penalisation for begging.[5]

In light of the Lacatus vs. Switzerland verdict[6] in January 2021, in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that it was a violation of Lacatus’s Human Rights article 8 to sentence her to 500 Swiss Franc, converted to five days in prison, for begging, NGOs, the Institute for Human Rights, and lawyers expected the legal practice in Denmark to change[7]: the Danish law is more severe than the Swiss prohibition on begging, as begging in Denmark is automatically punished with an unconditional 14 days in prison.[8]

Nevertheless, Minister of Justice, Nick Hækkerup, decided to preserve the laws in Denmark, though he acknowledged that Denmark might lose if a begging case were tried in front of the ECtHR.[9]

One of the main arguments of the Danish Supreme Court was that 

“[i]n Denmark there is access to public assistance for people in need and that people who are in the country will, thus, have the possibility to get their most basic needs fulfilled ..()..When there is such an access to public assistance in situations of need, the Supreme Court declares itself unsure to what extent begging is protected by article 8, paragraph 1 in the human rights convention.”[10]

This does not reflect what we, Kompasset Kirkens Korshær, experience working with migrants who experience homelessness. In Kompasset Kirkens Korshær, which is a rights-based NGO that offers an emergency night shelter, a day shelter, as well as counselling for unregistered migrants experiencing homelessness, we regularly meet clients who have been charged for begging.

Unregistered migrants experiencing homelessness do not receive any benefits whilst in Denmark and have very limited access to Danish social welfare. In fact, many are automatically assumed to be in Denmark illegally because they lack a social security number. In our experience, however, a large majority of them arrive in Denmark from EU states, often from lower economic backgrounds, seeking jobs and are here within the rights granted through the EU regulations concerning freedom of movement. They often just fall through the cracks of a much too complicated registration process.

These individuals are dependent on private organisations to provide them with basic services and counselling on how to find work, how to get registered and how to obtain social rights in Denmark. Public authorities only finance emergency night shelters in winter, emergency hospital treatment and, in some cases, a one-way ticket back to their home country. The situation is, thus, similar to the one in Switzerland.[11]

Common traits for those subpoenaed for begging is that they come from disadvantaged communities and use begging as a means of income, coupled with other money generating activities,  such as collecting bottles for refund or selling scrap metal or street newspapers. 

Some only have a few years of schooling, if any. Some have families to provide for, others might struggle with addiction, as was the case for the Lithuanian man. Some are old or disabled. All the begging cases we have come across in Kompasset have been against people belonging to the Roma community. 

One individual we have met who served 14 days in prison is Victor. Victor is a man in his fifties living with his brother. They travel back and forth from Romania to Denmark, where they collect bottles and sell street newspapers.

Victor is non-verbal due to a physical disability. He has difficulties communicating with others except for with his brother and gets lost easily. He is, thus, totally dependent on his brother. 

A few months ago, Victor was arrested by the police whilst collecting bottles near a train station in Copenhagen. His brother came to our counselling service not understanding why the police had taken away Victor.

It turned out that Victor had been taken away by the police because he had been convicted for begging two years prior. When the police give someone a subpoena and the person does not speak Danish, they will provide a telephone translator. However, due to Victor's disability he did not understand what the translator explained to him. Victor was judged in absentia and was forced to serve 14 days in prison. Whilst in prison, Victor was unaware why he was imprisoned. As Victor has already served his sentence, it is very difficult to appeal the case.  

In the winter of 2020, a young woman called Mihaela received a subpoena for begging. She was accused of having

“[b]egged in aggravating circumstances, addressing random passersby in a densely populated area on Strøget, as she sat and took turns looking down at the asphalt and up at passersby who put coins in her cup without receiving a Strada magazine in return, and due to her location passersby could not help but take a stance against her and her begging”[12]

She was pregnant at the time and told us that she gets tired easily. She gets up every morning at 6am, walks around collecting bottles, and when she is too tired to walk, she sits down to take a break and sells the street newspaper.

Mihaela was advised by her lawyer to provide a statement. In court, however, her statement was dismissed. After leaving court she was excited and thought she had only received a warning. However, from the lawyer we learnt that she had in fact been sentenced to 14 days in prison. With the help from Kompasset and a lawyer, she managed to appeal the case. 

These two cases, together with the case of the Lithuanian man, reflect the diversity of social problems experienced by people who find themselves needing to beg. In the Lacatus verdict, the ECtHR stated the importance of taking personal circumstances into consideration. The persons we worked with were not given the chance to make their personal circumstances heard. Furthermore, these cases highlight how penalisation of begging criminalises some of the most vulnerable people in society. We cannot punish and imprison people out of poverty. These measures only bring added stigmatisation to already marginalised people.