It has been two years since the police beat at a petrol station in Kongsberg. On Tuesday and Wednesday, 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 create case law. news met the suspended police officer last week, and watched the surveillance video with him. Photo: Christian Ziegler Remme / news – A duty of service Defender John Christian Elden started his procedure by reviewing the opportunities and duties 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 it is an assessment that must be made on the spot, and not long afterwards. Elden believes that there must be intent in order to be convicted of serious breach of duty, and that has not been proven in this case, according to the defender. – 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 defense attorney, the prosecution and an assistant lawyer who will present their views to the five judges in the venerable hall in the government quarter in Oslo. First State Attorney Thomas Frøberg and defenders Heidi Reisvang and John Christian Elden in the Supreme Court. Photo: Stian Haraldsen / news Split views on report Elden read from a report from the Norwegian Police Academy, where parts of the content were adapted to this case. The prosecution believed it went too far into the assessment of the defendant’s understanding of the situation, and only parts of it were therefore approved in the court proceedings. The report was created by Henriette Kaasa Ringheim, who is working on a doctorate in operational police science at the Norwegian Police Academy. It is about how intuitively the police have to act in heated situations, and that it can be difficult for them to remember everything afterwards. Here are some of the points Elden read out: Activation will affect both perception, senses and cognition and thoughts. In operational situations, it is common to experience tunnel vision in that you focus exclusively on the other party, and other sensory impressions are lost. My experience from teaching these topics is that police officers find memory loss unpleasant. It pokes at their professional pride and self-confidence, and they are worried about not being believed if they say they don’t remember. They need to have a full overview and create meaning in what has taken place. In an operational situation with a high threat level and little time available, it has been decided that the police officer has the ability to make intuitive decisions and act quickly. Police officers often use simple terms, such as reading people and scanning and gut feeling. These assessments take place very quickly, and it is often difficult to account for them afterwards because they are automated processes. – Punishable acts After Elden had finished his procedure, First State Attorney Thomas Frøberg started his. – The public prosecutor’s office believes, like the majority in the Court of Appeal, that there is a question of criminal acts against both victims, said Frøberg. He further pointed out that the Court of Appeal believed that there had to be an extraordinary situation in order to hit 14 times as hard, and that this was not the case in Kongsberg that October night. Frøberg said that police officers have extended opportunities to use force, but that other means should be used first, as long as there is no question of emergency guardians. – The police are trained to handle difficult situations and use physical force. It also means that the police’s prerequisites for exercising power in a way that corresponds to the greatest possible extent with the principles in the Police Act must be good, said Frøberg, and continued: – Self-restraint is a professional ethical duty for the police, it is laid down in the police instructions. All this means that the police can also be expected to be judged somewhat more strictly in certain situations than an ordinary citizen would be. Accusing The policeman 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. 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 policeman or as myself. Those who know me know that I am not a violent person. – Didn’t know he was a policeman The policeman said in court that he feared an angry 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. Kevin Simensen says he did not 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 the policeman was found guilty. Published 12.11.2024, at 07.24 Updated 12.11.2024, at 17.42
ttn-69
Only got to partly use the new report in the Supreme Court – news Buskerud – Local news, TV and radio
