Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have no idea why the judge withdrew. I hope this will be explained.Are there any more updates? And "why" did this Judge withdraw? Yes, those other 2 BETTER agree!!
Are there any more updates? And "why" did this Judge withdraw? Yes, those other 2 BETTER agree!!
I wouldn't say 'random' exactly but I agree with your conclusion. With three judges, if one takes an unduly lenient view of PM, that one can be outvoted by the other two. But with two, and the rule that in the event of a disagreement the benefit of the doubt is given to the defendant/appellant or whatever we call PM now, that one unduly lenient judge's view would be the one to prevail. That does seem to me to be slanting things in PM's favour. I'm surprised it's allowed.Sounds like it, Moll.
With three judges, the outcome is random. With two outcome is slanted in PM´s favour. Am I getting that wrong?
Are the chances the two out of three agree larger, than if two people agree? I should have put it that way.
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!