The crime of defamation of character is defined in Article 71 of the Greenland Penal Code (Kriminalloven for Grønland), which provides (translation from Danish) (1) "Any person shall be liable to punishment for defamation of character if he degrades the honour of another person through insulting words or acts or if he makes or disseminates an accusation which is likely to damage the esteem in which the insulted party is held by his fellow citizens or which may in other ways damage his relationship with other people.
[8] This case was heard by judges, Mr. J. Cremona, Mrs. D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr. F. Gölcüklü, Mr. F. Matscher, Mr. B. Walsh and Mr. B. Gomard in the city of Strasbourg and a decision was made in February 1989.
[9] Due to the fact that Mr. Barfod allegedly attacked the judges' personally, which could ruin their reputation and call into question their credibility, he was charged with the crime.
His reasoning for disagreeing with the decision states, "With the greatest respect for the opinion of the majority of my colleagues, I regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion which the Court has reached in this case.
In the article giving rise to the case, the applicant called in question the impartiality of the two lay judges, both employees of the Local Government, in proceedings instituted against "their employer".
Since he was not a party to, nor had any direct or indirect personal interest in the initial proceedings, in which the Government was defendant, Mr Barfod had no motive for attacking the two lay judges individually.
[11] In his dissent he cites Article 62 of the Danish Constitution which states, "Den dømmende magts udøvelse kan kun ordnes ved lov.
Særdomstole med dømmende myndighed kan ikke nedsættes"[12] (This translates to, the administration of justice shall remain separated from the Executive and the rules in this respect shall be laid down by law[13]).
He also speaks upon the fact that what Mr. Barfod has said, is more aggressive, but similar to what the courts have admits to happening with these judges and how they probably should have stepped down as he stated, "I consider that what Mr Barfod said, admittedly in somewhat crude and extreme terms, was no different to what was, is or has been stated: by the Supreme Court of Greenland - which agreed with him that the two lay judges "ought ... to have considered themselves as disqualified and thus refrained from participating in the case" and that "the accused was correct in drawing attention to this" because they were "employed in leading positions by the defendant party" (judgment, para.
In the book Political Libels: A Comparative Study, it states, "The ECtHR took a markedly less protective attitude towards freedom of 'political' expression in Barfod v. Denmark...
In the US case, it was ruled in favor of Murphy, the judge, as stated, "The jury's verdict in this case reflects their conclusion that Wedge and the Herald defamed the plaintiff, and that they did so with actual malice and an awareness that they were enabling a campaign by the district attorney for the Bristol district to discredit the plaintiff by attacking the core attributes a judge must possess — even temperament, lack of any bias, fairness at all times, and a particular sensitivity to the plight of victims of crimes".