Prosecution Argues for Terrorism Convictions and Harsher Penalties
The Director of Public Prosecutions in Iceland is currently seeking severe sentences for Sindri Snær Birgisson and Ísidór Nathansson in a landmark terrorism case, arguing before the Supreme Court that the two men demonstrated a clear intent to commit terrorist acts. This appeal follows earlier rulings by the District Court and Court of Appeal, which acquitted the defendants of terrorism charges but convicted them of serious weapons offenses.
Sigríður J. Friðjónsdóttir, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and prosecutor Anna Barbara Andradóttir, have presented arguments emphasizing that Birgisson's actions, viewed in their entirety, constituted preparatory acts aimed at carrying out terrorism. These actions reportedly included obtaining weapons, studying material from known terrorists, and gathering information on bomb-making, drone construction, potential targets, and police equipment.
Background of the Alleged Plot and Previous Rulings
The case stems from an alleged terrorism plot, the first of its kind in Icelandic history, which came to light in September 2022. Police arrested Birgisson and Nathansson, seizing dozens of firearms, including semi-automatic pistols and 3D-printed weapons, along with a significant amount of ammunition. The alleged plot was believed to target Icelandic institutions, such as the police and the parliament (Alþingi), and high-profile individuals.
Initially, both men were charged with attempted terrorism and weapons violations in December 2022. However, the terrorism charges were dismissed by the District Court in March 2023 due to unclear wording in the indictment. New, more detailed charges were filed in June 2023, which were again dismissed by the District Court in October 2023 but subsequently reinstated by the Court of Appeal (Landsréttur).
In March 2024, the Reykjavík District Court acquitted Birgisson and Nathansson of the terrorism charges, but convicted them of serious weapons offenses. Sindri Snær Birgisson received a two-year prison sentence, while Ísidór Nathansson was sentenced to eighteen months.
Prosecution's Supreme Court Arguments
Before the Supreme Court, the prosecution maintains that the men's preparatory actions were 'well underway' when they were arrested and that police intervention prevented a planned attack. They contend that Nathansson played a crucial role, being 'above, below, and all around' the case, encouraging Birgisson, and deleting a vast amount of data from his devices prior to his arrest. The prosecution is also seeking harsher penalties for the weapons offenses, describing them as 'unprecedented in severity' and involving 'extremely dangerous weapons' capable of causing significant harm. The central question before the Supreme Court remains whether Birgisson and Nathansson unequivocally demonstrated intent to commit terrorism, a legal provision that has seen limited testing in Icelandic case law.
0 Comments