The 82nd session of the Block trial in Hamburg took place on Tuesday amid fallout from a high-profile police raid the previous day. Authorities searched the Hamburg offices of Die Zeit and the home of reporter Anne Kunze, confiscating audio files from the magazine’s investigative podcast ZEIT-Verbrechen: House of Block. The operation occurred as the trial—already one of Germany’s most closely watched—reached its 82nd day, with judges debating whether the seizure of journalistic materials violated constitutional protections for the press.
Police raid targets investigative podcast over child abduction case
The podcast centers on Stephan Hensel, his new wife, and two of their daughters, exploring the 2023 abduction of their three children by Hensel’s ex-wife, Christina Block, and her associates. Among the seized recordings were interviews with Hensel’s daughters, one of whom is still a minor. Kunze, who led the reporting, surrendered the files under a court order sealed under §110 StPO, which restricts access to the seized materials but does not prevent prosecutors from examining their contents. The raid’s timing, coinciding with Hamburg’s Press Freedom Week, has sparked debate over whether the court overreached in protecting investigative journalism.
Journalists present in the courtroom on Tuesday expressed concern about whether the measures were justified under criminal procedure law or represented an unprecedented threat to press rights. The legal framework governing source confidentiality in Germany is strict but not absolute: under §53 StPO, reporters have the right to refuse testimony about sources unless revealing their identity would not occur. However, this protection does not apply if a crime carries a minimum one-year prison sentence, though exceptions remain for source identities themselves.
The Hamburg court justified the seizure by arguing that Hensel’s daughters had already identified themselves in the podcast, removing the need for source protection. Legal experts dispute this interpretation. Prof. Dr. Anna H. Albrecht, a media law scholar at Potsdam University, noted that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) has ruled that source protection serves the broader function of journalism, not just individual reporters or informants. The court’s decision to seize the recordings without engaging with this precedent risks discouraging witnesses who uncover wrongdoing, particularly when minors are involved.
Hensel’s daughters have already invoked their own legal rights under §52 StPO to refuse testimony. One girl’s lawyer, Dr. Tanja Jeney, revealed on Tuesday that the teenager had sent Kunze a message expressing distress over the raid. “She told Kunze things in confidence,” Jeney said. “That’s exactly what the protection is meant to safeguard.” Die Zeit’s editor-in-chief, Giovanni di Lorenzo, called the situation absurd, emphasizing that the recordings did not involve statements from a suspect but from an abduction victim who had already provided extensive testimony to police.
Legal battles over journalistic protections and seized recordings
The court’s actions may hinge on a technical legal distinction: whether the podcast recordings qualify as “mitteilungen”, communications made to journalists, or as “self-produced materials.” Under §53 Abs. 2 StPO, the former category enjoys stronger protections unless revealing a source’s identity is unavoidable. Legal precedent suggests the recordings fall into the protected category, as the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) has broadly defined “mitteilungen” to include anything disclosed to journalists, even in response to direct questions. “Even if a source identifies themselves, journalists can still refuse to answer questions about the content of those communications,” Albrecht confirmed. The court’s insistence on treating the recordings as self-produced, and thus potentially subject to disclosure, ignores this established legal principle.
Related Post: German court rules brass knuckles in shared garage a carried
Die Zeit has already filed complaints against the search, and the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court will now determine whether the measures were lawful. Meanwhile, the trial took an unexpected turn on Tuesday when the defense introduced an email sent by Hensel’s Danish wife on September 1, 2021, the same day Hensel illegally took the children to Denmark. The message, written on his behalf, claimed their lawyer, Gerd Uecker, had advised keeping the children “for the time being” to improve their chances of remaining with their father.
New evidence reveals alleged manipulation in custody dispute
The email, introduced as evidence by the defense, highlights allegations of Hensel’s manipulation of legal authorities. His lawyer, Philip von der Meden, dismissed suggestions the message was accidental, arguing Hensel had “a good sense of what this family was capable of.” The Danish wife did not appear in court on Tuesday despite being summoned, and the judge noted that compelling her testimony would require Danish legal cooperation.
The court’s decision to seize the podcast recordings rests on a narrow legal interpretation: whether the material qualifies as self-produced by Die Zeit or as communications made to journalists. Under §53 Abs. 2 S. 3 StPO, the latter category is shielded unless it risks exposing a source’s identity.
Legal scholars confirm the recordings fall into the protected class, as anything disclosed to journalists, even in response to direct questions, remains confidential unless it endangers source anonymity. The BGH has repeatedly ruled that a source’s willingness to be named does not waive journalistic confidentiality. By treating the recordings as self-produced, the court ignored this precedent, raising questions about whether the seizure violated the §97 Abs. 5 StPO prohibition on seizing press materials.
The ambiguity extends to the court’s justification for overriding the zeugnisverweigerungsrecht (right to refuse testimony). While §53 Abs. 2 S. 2 StPO allows exceptions for serious crimes, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) has clarified that source protection serves the function of journalism as a whole, not just individual reporters or informants. The court’s argument, that the daughters’ self-identification in the podcast removed the need for protection, contradicts this principle. The seized recordings may therefore have been obtained unlawfully under §103 StPO, which prohibits coercive measures against journalists unless necessary to prevent a grave crime.
Leave a Reply