– I have never experienced anything like this, says Helge Bjørnestad, who for a number of years was a magistrate in the then Stavanger district court. He says the court’s task is to provide a rationale for why the evidence in a case is, or is not, valid for a conviction. – It greatly weakens the quality of the Tengs judgment when the judges choose to come up with characteristics of the state prosecutors, and attribute to them motives for how they behaved in court. This has absolutely nothing to do with a judgement, Bjørnestad believes. The experienced judge administered trials for 30 years until 2020. He is best known for having led the main proceedings in the district court case after the Nokas robbery in Stavanger in 2004 where 14 men were eventually sentenced to long sentences. Bjørnestad emphasizes that it is not the actual decision in the Tengs judgment that he is commenting on, but the way in which the judgment is written, i.e. the wording. Team judges Jarle Golten Smørdal (right) and Arild Oma came during the verdict reading on Tuesday with many critical remarks about the way the prosecution has presented its evidence in court. Photo: Heiko Junge / NTB The judges write, among other things, that the prosecution has fallen into a confirmation trap, and that the investigation has not been objective. They also believe that the prosecution has partly made speculations. When the state prosecutors, in the same way as the district court, chose to disregard the unidentified hairs in Birgitte’s hands, the judges write that “it is difficult for the court of appeal to understand how such an approach can be in line with sound evidence assessment”. – Affects the entire prosecution apparatus – As a judge, it is important to be clear, and when acquitting in a murder case, not least the bereaved have a right to a comprehensive justification for why the evidence was not forthcoming. But to attribute an ignoble motive to the investigators or the prosecution, as a judge I would be too good at that, he believes. Team judge Rune Bård Hansen at the Agder Court of Appeal is a member of the judges’ media group. Hansen tells news that he has never before read such harsh criticism in a judgment against the prosecution’s assessment of evidence. – But this affects not only the state prosecutors who made up the prosecution, but all parts of the police and the prosecution that have had to do with the Tengs case. Here, the entire prosecuting authority will probably make an evaluation afterwards, he believes. Lawyer Brynjar Nielsen Meling reacts strongly to the fact that the state attorneys are named in sequences of the judgment where the panel judges criticize the prosecution. Photo: Marthe Synnøve Johannessen / news Lawyer Brynjar Nielsen Meling has criticized the judges on social media for having named the state prosecutors in some passages where they present their criticism. Among other things, on pages 22 and 23 of the judgement, the judges express irritation that state attorney Nina Grande has used parts of the explanation given to DNA expert Walther Parson as an argument for the defendant’s guilt both in the opening statement and in the proceedings. This despite the fact that Grande, according to the judges, had “promised” not to do this when she answered a question from one of the team judges during the trial. Photo: Screenshot – The actors have a right to distance themselves from what happens in the courtroom. We must state, we must present evidence and we must make arguments. The actors have a role, and that is why we also stand there with capes. When you get a judgment where criticism is directed at the police and the prosecution, then you should have the right not to be named in the judgment, he believes. Meling thinks it is particularly bad that two prosecutors are almost held personally responsible for mistakes and shortcomings that have been committed over time by the police. – We shouldn’t have it that way. As judges, you can give criticism, but then to the prosecuting authority and the prosecution as a profession, not to individuals. The two state attorneys did not even have the prosecution responsibility in this case, that responsibility lies with the attorney general, says Meling. Defense colleague disagrees Lawyer Odd Rune Torstrup in Stavanger, on the other hand, does not agree with all the criticism of the judges’ use of words. Odd Rune Torstrup. Photo: Petter Strøm / news – I do not feel that anyone in the judgment goes too far in criticizing the prosecution. What is written is part of the justification for refuting the prosecution’s argument, Torstrup believes. This is something that happens to a greater or lesser extent in all cases, according to the defense lawyer. – Most often, it is the defence’s argument that is countered. We have to put up with this. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, claims Torstrup The Tengs judge will not comment news has given the district judge Jarle Golten Smørdal, who presided over the Tengs trial in the Gulating Court of Appeal, an offer to comment on the criticism of the way the judgment was written . He doesn’t want that. “If judges were to supplement and comment on their own decisions afterwards, ambiguities could quickly arise,” he writes in an e-mail. The Supreme Prosecuting Authority in Norway does not currently wish to comment on the Tengs judgment either. “We are awaiting the state attorney’s advice, and are not commenting on either the verdict or the criticism now,” writes communications advisor Mie Skarpaas at the Office of the Attorney General.
ttn-69
Harsh criticism from a veteran judge against Tengs judges – news Rogaland – Local news, TV and radio
