– Our clients want the media to gain access. It is strange to the public that such a presumptively important explanation is not made known. This is stated by Mette Yvonne Larsen, who is a lawyer for Jakob Ingebrigtsen and the sister in the criminal case against Gjert Ingebrigtsen. Attorney Mette Yvonne Larsen says that the clients, Jakob Ingebrigtsen and sister, want the press to gain access. Photo: Ksenia Novikova / news It was the Norwegian Press Association and the Norwegian Editors’ Association that today sent the access requirement to the South Rogaland District Court after Tone Ingebrigtsen was successful in closed doors during his explanation in court on Monday. The media organizations indicate that the principle of publicity is a supporting principle of legal security. They believe that the press should control on behalf of the public. The access requirement states, among other things, that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes the state’s obligation to facilitate access and openness. This is especially true of cases of great public interest. Tone Ingebrigtsen had the right to refuse to explain himself as a spouse to defendant Gjert Ingebrigtsen. As a premise, she set a testimony that the hall was cleared for all outside the court’s actors. The judges agreed to this. -Missing an important puzzle chip thus had to both the journalists, her own sons Filip and Kristoffer, daughter-in-law Elisabeth Asserson Ingebrigtsen, and a researcher, leave the case. The court also closed the video transfer of the diploma. – I don’t trust anyone, was Tone Ingebrigtsen’s argument. However, the entire testimony was taken up by the court for use in a possible appeal case, and this is what the recording the media is now asking to be delivered. – When the public lacks knowledge of one of the most central diplomas, there are shortcomings in coverage. It is an important puzzle piece that is missing, says Sindre Granly Meldalen. He is an adviser to the Norwegian Press Association and author of the access requirement. Karianne Solbrekke, news editor in TV 2, agrees. Karianne Solbrekke is news editor in TV 2 and critical of the court’s decision. Photo: TV 2 Eivind Senneset / TV 2 – Tone Ingebrigtsen’s explanation is pointed out as central to this case where the fact is disputed, and then it is very problematic that the press has not been present to hear the explanation, she says. Assistant Attorney Larsen already responded when Tone Ingebrigtsen’s claim made the claim on Monday. – It is generally unfortunate that a witness can force the right to make such a choice. The judge said they experienced pressure, she says. Alternative justification The judges thus felt that the case would be less informed if Tone Ingebrigtsen refused to explain. They thought this made the closure required. But Sindre Granly Meldalen in the Press Association thinks the real reason for the claim was really another. Sindre Granly Meldalen has written the access requirement on behalf of the Norwegian press. Photo: Lars Eivind Bones / Dagbladet Tone Ingebrigtsen wanted the press to stop “indulging” at the expense of her family. Legally, this is called “Peace of Privacy”. – We understand that, but do not see that the court can use a different reason than what she does herself to close the doors, says Meldalen. This was the same rationale that Gjert Ingebrigtsen argued for ahead of the main hearing. He was granted neither the district court nor the Court of Appeal. The media organizations believe that the cases where a witness refuses to explain themselves to open doors is not the statutory provision is intended to hit. -There was a similar incident in the Nokas case, says Meldalen. David Toska’s mother of defendant David Toska refused to explain if there was no prohibition on a report, and was upheld by this by the majority in the Court of Appeal. This was reversed by the Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee, which today is called Appeals Committee. In assessing whether there was such a report ban, it was called: “(…) It is, as pointed out by the loving parties, great misgivings by accepting that – in order to an explanation, there is no explanation for an explanation – should be able to make a prohibition on the case (…) at least in a case, in a case,” with a particular view. ” As an apropos: District Court Judge Arild Dommersnes who manages the Gjert Ingebrigtsen case was one of the prosecutors in the Nokas case. The Norwegian Press Association and the Norwegian Editors’ Association point out that Tone Ingebrigtsen is not the first witness in a Norwegian court that thinks it is uncomfortable to witness a large press offering present. They emphasize that she “is also not alone in thinking to want a stronger protection of her privacy than a public main hearing entails”. The hall was cleared for everyone outside the court’s actors, when Tone Ingebrigtsen gave his testimony on Monday. Photo: Heiko Junge / NTB – One should not be able to threaten solutions that impose restrictions on the public, says Meldalen. The judges in the Ingebrigtsen case have announced that they will decide on the petition early next week. First, the parties to the case should be given the opportunity to make their remarks. TV2 editor Solbrekke says she fears that the case with Tone Ingebrigtsen could have consequences for future litigation. – I am concerned about what precedent this can potentially put. – Don’t talk to the siblings in the access requirement, it is emphasized that Tone Ingebrigtsen’s testimony is very central to the case, for which there was great public interest. The requirement also emphasizes that the offenders in the case themselves have explained about deeply personal details for open law. Neither lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen, Jakob Ingebrigtsen nor the sister can tell the siblings of the latter what the mother told in court. Photo: Eirik Pessl-Kleiven / news Their assistance lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen stated in court that they want the mother’s explanation to be known as well. – What is extra boring is that my two clients are required to confidentiality to their loved ones, wife and siblings. It is extremely burdensome and supports the whole problem in the case, precisely that the children did not share with each other how they felt, says Larsen. Media critic Gunnar Bodahl-Johansen is critical that the diploma went for closed doors. Photo: Archive media critic Gunnar Bodahl-Johansen believes that unpleasantness by witnessing cannot be a good enough reason to close its doors. – The extent to which the media is in detail is another discussion that no one oppose. One must distinguish between this and the principled questions. Here it is an important principle distinction. If you can’t maintain that distinction, you face many challenges, he says. Published 30.04.2025, at. 18.26
ttn-69
