How should the court know about Scharf talked about them in the PET book, when a PET does not say anything, ask the defender.

the Police Intelligence service (PET) is allowed to put the cards on the table, if the case against the service's former chief Jakob Scharf shall be illuminated adequately, believe Scharfs two defence lawyers.

Earlier this year, Scharf in city court sentenced to four months ' unconditional imprisonment. At the same time he confiscated the profits on the book - 397.625 crowns. The judgment appealed Scharf, and Friday will be held ankesagens the second hearing in The high Court.

450 quotes supplied the former head of the Police Intelligence service (PET), Jakob Scharf to journalist Morten Skjoldager in the book "Seven years to a PET".

But the 28 passages in the book are criminals, as Scharf has betrayed confidential information from the intelligence services, claims the prosecution.

PET can not, however, justify exactly why, as the secret service, thus - according to the prosecution are going to do it, as the whole matter is about:

Divulging confidential information.

It strikes Jacob Scharfs two defenders down on Friday in the Eastern high Court.

For how one should be able to find out about it, as Jakob Scharf told in the book, it was classified as confidential, in the PET's documents, if the service will not deliver something sounds.

- We can not be informed of the matter - We don't have something robust, and some documentation, says defender David Neutzsky-Wulff.

- If the court should undertake a full review, so you must have all the documents, so one can assess whether the information is confidential, says Scharfs other defends, Lars Kjeldsen.

the Lawyers do not believe that Jakob Scharf has disclosed the confidential information. But if he has, then it must be proved, they say. The benefit of the doubt to get the accused person to the good.

- You have set a legal fiction - I would call it - so all the PET does is confidential. And so it is in fact Jakob Scharf, who must prove that it was not confidential, says Lars Kjeldsen.

- What value should one assign their statements, if we can't see the foundation, and what they based it on, he asks.

the Book is also too important to Scharf should have refrained from comment in the, explains, defends David Neutzsky-Wulff.

- It was not getting closer, he sold. It was an important book. It had social relevance, says David Neutzsky-Wulff.

He says that many at the beginning of the year, asked him:

- Why Jacob Scharf not just his mouth?

To this he replies, that Jacob Scharf was the head of PET, when the terror really came to Denmark, and the knowledge and experience must be given to the public.

And, moreover, was Jacob Scharf, a head of the PET, which meant that the service had a need for transparency, explains the defender. Thus, he has just followed his original line from his time as commander.

Jakob Scharf sat as a PET in the period 2007-2013. In the book he mentions quite a few confidential information and tasks in PET, says the prosecutor.

Scharf will be dismissed in The high Court. The prosecutor wants to sentence becomes even harder. The judgment is expected to fall in February.

/ritzau/