The video in this case: The video used in this case is not of the same quality as the one used in court. This is also an edited and edited version. – My opinion is that the video was absolutely central to the boys being believed in this case, says lawyer Heidi Reisvang at the Elden law firm, who represented the three young people. The boys were accused of making serious threats against two police officers during an assignment at Holmlia in Oslo this summer. They were also accused of pushing or pulling one of the police officers. But after listening to witness statements and seeing the surveillance video from the scene, the Oslo District Court instead held that the police’s use of force had been excessive. The court did not find it proven that the police officers’ explanations were correct, and therefore chose to acquit the boys. The prosecutor had submitted a request for respectively 18, 16 and 14 days of suspended prison for the boys with a probationary period of two years. Dagbladet has also mentioned this judgment. Lawyer Heidi Reisvang at Elden law firm. Photo: Heather Ørbeck Eliassen The police: – A different view It was police prosecutor Hilde Søraas who led the case for the prosecution. The police disagree with the acquittal. Beyond that, the police do not want to go into details, since the case is on the public prosecutor’s table. – The public prosecutor’s office basically has a different view of the facts in the case than what the district court has taken as a basis. – The prosecution must now consider whether the case should be appealed. It is the state prosecutors in Oslo who have the competence to appeal. The police register regulations limit the prosecuting authority in the police in saying what the internal setting will be about, she comments in an e-mail. The incident took place outside a Bunnpris store on 17 July this year. The three accused boys were passengers in the same car. According to the explanation in court, they stopped in front of the shop to buy something to drink. The two police officers were on patrol with a civilian car at the same time. The police decided to check the car, since the owner of the car was not registered with a driving license in the police systems. However, the driver on this day had borrowed the car from the owner. Blue lights were not used to stop the car. At that time, the young people had already stopped the car at the Bunnpris shop. Perceived the situation as “suspicious” It was at this point that the noise arose. One of the police officers asked the young people, who were on their way into the shop, to stop. They didn’t. According to the police officers’ explanation, they perceived the situation to mean that the defendants walked “quickly” away from the car. This was suspicious, they thought. However, the court points out that the defendants got out of the car calmly, and refers to the video. The judgment from the Oslo district court also states that the video shows that one police officer grabs one of the boys and pushes him against the wall by the shop. It is also mentioned in the judgment that one of the officers was not in uniform. He did, however, have a certificate of service on his sweater. – I can add that my client only understood that it was the police who contacted them only after he was pushed into the wall by one of the police officers. He was naturally scared and frustrated by the police’s approach and has lost trust in the police, says Reisvang. – Will be the subject of a possible appeal The police comment on this part of the judgment as follows: – On a general basis, we can say that the police want to use as little force as possible in their duties. Only if it is clearly necessary and proportionate to the use of force is this used in line with, among other things, the pyramid of power, where the most lenient means are tried first, says police attorney Søraas. The police officers then asked for support from other patrols. In the message that was sent out, it was stated that violence had been used against the police. Other police patrols in the area came to the scene, and the dog patrol also came with patrol dogs. – Was it made clear to the boys that it was a police officer who confronted them? – If the case is appealed by the state prosecutors in Oslo, this will become a topic in an appeal round. We will return to this in the event of an appeal. – Satisfied Oslo District Court held during its consideration of the case that there was no authority for the police to have arrested the three. “The court cannot see that there has been evidence to suggest that the defendants influenced or attempted to influence this act of service. There is also no information to suggest that the defendants retaliated for this act of service with violence or threats,” the court’s conclusion states. – We are satisfied that the court followed our argument on this. The court agreed with us that the police’s opinion did not harmonize with what happened on the video, says lawyer Heidi Reisvang. – The police generally have great credibility in criminal cases. In this case, the video has been very central to supporting the defendant’s explanation. The case is in a way thought provoking and it shows that the court should not simply base the police’s explanation on criminal cases.
ttn-69