It has been two years since the police beat at a petrol station in Kongsberg. Over the next two days, the case will be heard in Norway’s highest court. The policeman was acquitted in the district court, and sentenced to 120 days in prison in the court of appeal – a sentence he appealed to the Supreme Court. The case is expected to set a precedent. First State Attorney Thomas Frøberg and lawyer John Christian Elden in the Supreme Court. Photo: Supreme Court – A duty of service The judges in the Supreme Court have reviewed the case in advance, and the proceedings are expected to last a day and a half. First, the defenders must hold a procedure, before the prosecution and finally the legal aid must do the same. Elden started his procedure by going through the opportunities and duties that police officers have. – The Police Act allows for the use of force if it is necessary and justifiable. The use of force is not violence, but an act of service, and ultimately a duty of service. Then it must be assessed whether it is necessary and proportionate, said Elden. And then emphasize that there is an assessment that needs to be made on the spot, not long afterwards. Elden believes that there needs to be intent in order to be convicted of gross breach of duty, and that has not been proven in this case, according to the defense lawyer. – Believe it or not, so to speak, the facts of the District Court and the Court of Appeal almost coincide in the description of the case. But they have a different application of law, and they have a different approach to this fact. Elden believes the district court, which ruled on acquittal, applied the law correctly. The accused policeman is present in court, but neither he nor other witnesses will explain themselves. It is only the three lawyers who will present their views before the five judges in the venerable hall in the Government Quarters. A day and a half in court The policeman is asking for a full acquittal, and has appealed the Court of Appeal’s application of the law, case management and sentencing. He has claimed throughout that he feared for his own safety and that of his colleagues, and that the use of force was necessary since the main victim, Kevin Simensen, did not respond to this. – My clients have the complete opposite view of it. That is at the core of what the Supreme Court must assess, says aid lawyer Øystein Storrvik. The Bureau believes that the use of force went too far, but does not wish to comment on the case ahead of proceedings in the Supreme Court. First State Attorney Thomas Frøberg will prosecute the case for the prosecution. – Is no violent man news met the policeman before the weekend, when he allowed himself to be interviewed for the first time. – I think people see the video and think it’s a violent man, which I’m not. – How does it feel? – It is burdensome. It’s nothing special. It’s a stamp I’d rather have off me, because it has nothing to do with who I am, either as a police officer or as myself. Those who know me know that I am not a violent person. The policeman said in court that he feared a tense atmosphere would escalate into more noise, and grabbed Simensen’s arm to talk to him. Simensen pulled his arm, and the policeman tried to take control by putting him on the ground. He then hit Simensen repeatedly in the head. And it is the blows on the ground that the policeman is convicted of. – Didn’t know he was a policeman Kevin Simensen says he didn’t know it was a policeman who grabbed him. He was subjected to blows with both a clenched fist and a baton by the defendant. – I knew there were police there, but I didn’t realize that none of them intervened. It felt like I was suddenly attacked, even though I knew the police were there, said Simensen in the Court of Appeal in April. In the Borgarting Court of Appeal, the prosecutor asked for 60 days’ unconditional imprisonment. The court doubled this when he was found guilty. Published 12.11.2024, at 07.24 Updated 12.11.2024, at 09.48
ttn-69
