It was at the beginning of July that news told the story of five women in the Armed Forces who said in reports and interrogations that they were exposed to sexual pressure from a higher-ranking officer. The matter was then investigated by the Norwegian Armed Forces. In the investigation, several women were questioned. The officer himself believes that he did not present his side of the case well enough, and that the handling was therefore based on the wrong factual basis. One of the women questioned was Caroline. She could tell how the man proposed sex, and over a long period exposed her to unwanted sexual attention. This is how she described one of the episodes she experienced with the colonel to news: – He puts his hand down my T-shirt and touches my tits under the T-shirt. Then I can avert it. I’ll stop it. But it was difficult to be both nice and polite and dismissive with your boss, when there were only the two of us in the car. Warning which has now been deleted Even though the Norwegian Armed Forces had learned about the events, and that several women were involved, the man was allowed to take up a new position and with a new military rank of colonel. The defense ended up handling the case with a written warning. A warning that was supposed to last for two years – and which was deleted this summer because two years had passed. news has recently gained access to documents that shed new light on what happened in the case. Legal expertise: On the verge of criminal proceedings The documents have been written by the highest legal expertise in the Norwegian Defense Forces on military criminal law and disciplinary law – the Attorney General. The Attorney-General acts as the military prosecuting authority, and is an adviser in cases of violations of internal rules. They assessed the case after it had been investigated by the military police. In the documents, it appears that the head of the highest legal professional body considered it to be proof that the senior officer had both touched the breasts, kissed and invited for sex. Therefore, the legal expertise recommended a clear reaction: “The Attorney-General believes that the actions expelled are at the limit of being prosecuted as a criminal case and should therefore be subjected to a tangible reaction.” Graphics: facsimile of a letter from the Attorney General to the Armed Forces Because it could be difficult to prove in a court of law that the man had acted against the women’s wishes, it was primarily recommended by the Attorney General to pursue the case under the military disciplinary law. The case was therefore never investigated as a criminal case, but handled according to disciplinary law and with a written warning from the employer. The man believes that he was not allowed to present his side of the case, contradiction, and that the reactions according to the disciplinary law and a warning were therefore based on incorrect grounds. The colonel has previously also stated that he thought the contact with the women was mutual and voluntary. – The relationship that has existed in this case has been mutual. It has also been considered after the case was further investigated, says the man’s lawyer John Christian Elden to news today. However, the women have denied in an interview with news that it was mutual and voluntary. – The sexual attention I received was not mutual. It wasn’t the attention I wanted, Caroline has told news. Recommended reprimands and warned about signal effect The documents news has been given access to show what the Defence’s highest body for disciplinary matters recommended should happen. The advice comes in a three-page letter from the Attorney General. The legal expertise recommended a reprimand: A reprimand is a formal reaction that normally also appears on the military record. At the disciplinary hearing, the Norwegian Armed Forces have concluded that the employee has broken the law, regulations or orders. Punishment can include military arrest, fines or formal reprimand. In the recommendation to the Attorney General, it is stated that if the Armed Forces choose not to issue a disciplinary action, but instead drop the case, it is recommended that a formal warning be given by the employer. The attorney-general also pointed out that the case had a possible signaling effect, and that it is important that senior officers do not get off easily. “Considerations of equality and consideration of society’s expectations dictate, in the attorney general’s view, that no signal should be given that violations committed by persons at a certain degree level in the Armed Forces are subjected to more lenient treatment than other cases of a similar nature.” Expert: Discrepancy between advice and result Despite such a legal assessment by the Attorney General, the case for the colonel ended with a written warning. It is the lowest form of formal reaction an employee in the Defense can receive for having done something reprehensible: This is how the ladder of formal reactions was explained in a report from the Chief of Defense on whistleblowing. Here it is stated that a warning is the lowest form of formal reaction. Photo: diagram from the Chief of Defense’s report on notification / Defense news is aware that the Defense first issued a reprimand, but that it was then withdrawn. The documentation from the Attorney General, which news has been given access to, also does not show what happened when the punishment was withdrawn and turned into a written warning. In the warning, the officer’s boss writes that he has considered the case not to be sexual harassment, but unwanted sexual attention. The attorney general was not asked for new legal advice in connection with the change made by the man’s boss – where the reaction was changed from reprimand to warning. The handling causes lawyer, researcher and expert in whistle-blowing matters Birthe Maria Eriksen to react. She has read the warning the colonel received, and the Attorney General’s assessment. – My reaction is that the conditions are assessed as quite rough compared to the relevant penal provisions. There will then be a significant discrepancy between the Attorney-General’s recommendation for disciplinary action and what ultimately happens, says Eriksen to news. Lawyer Birthe Eriksen is an expert on whistleblowing in the workplace. Photo: Silje Rognsvåg / news – What do you think that it ended with a warning and not a punishment? – I think that they should have a very good and factual reason for moving away from the Attorney General’s recommendation. So I would like to know more about the rationale for deviating from it, says Birthe Marie Eriksen. – In any case, the most important thing in a case like this is that the legal protection of all parties has been taken care of. I question the extent to which the women who reported these serious and reprehensible conditions have had assistance from their representatives, protection representatives or lawyers, she says. The Defence: Not a case management error Nor does news find the answer from the Defense as to why the punishment was turned into a warning. The defense has been asked both what they did with the case after they received legal advice from the Attorney General, and whether they have made new assessments of the case after it was discussed by news. news does not get access to documents from the Norwegian Defense Forces about how they have handled the case. All they want to provide insight into is the conclusion: – The conclusion is that the case has been fully dealt with, where an official reaction has been given in the form of a written warning. The warning has been given on the basis of accusations of reprehensible behavior from a senior officer towards employees of a lower rank and/or subordinate in terms of command, writes HR Director Tom Simonsen in the Defense Staff to news. Although news has not been given access to the case’s documents, the Norwegian Armed Forces have asked for an interview about the case. Chief of the Defense Staff Elisabeth Natvig confirms that the case with the colonel has been reviewed again following news’s case about the women who had experienced sexual pressure. – What did you find? – We did not find any objectionable circumstances in how the case has been handled in the notification channel, replies Natvig. Chief of the Defense Staff Elisabeth Natvig says that the Defense has reviewed the case again following news’s cases. No errors were found in the handling of the notification case. Photo: Joakim Pedersen / news – Has news’s case had any consequences for the colonel in terms of rank, clearance, personnel responsibility, function or tasks? – It is a personnel matter that I do not want to go into here, Vice-Admiral Natvig replies. – Does this colonel still have the full confidence of the Armed Forces? – There is also a personnel matter that I do not want to go into. – What is the reason why the Defense Forces did not follow the Attorney-General’s recommendation to issue a censure, but instead issued a warning which is a milder reaction? – It is an assessment that was made by the current manager at the time. So I can’t go into that. But we have acted within the leeway the Attorney General has given us – albeit in the lower part of that sentence, says Natvig. The current commander at the time, to whom Natvig refers, has been presented with the information in this case and the statements from the Chief of the Defense Staff. The leader has now become a major general and has a central leadership job in the Armed Forces. He does not want to be interviewed, but sends this statement via a communications manager: – I cannot go into the assessments that have been made in the specific personnel case, beyond the fact that the case was subject to proper case management. The man’s lawyer: Refs on incorrect grounds news has been in contact with the officer who was investigated for sexual pressure. The man expresses via his lawyer John Christian Elden that he still believes that the Armed Forces have based their reaction on the wrong facts, and that the contact with the women was mutual and voluntary. Elden informs news that the man was first punished in the form of a fine of NOK 7,000. – My client was reprimanded. It was given without him having had insight into the matter and the opportunity to make a statement. As a result, he appealed against this punishment, says Elden to news. The man now receives assistance from lawyer John Christian Elden. Photo: Ksenia Novikova / news After the man had complained about the proceedings ahead of the punishment, the case was re-examined, the lawyer says. – New questions were taken from the military police, they investigated the case and they withdrew the punishment. They no longer saw grounds for following the Attorney General’s recommendation, because it was based on the wrong facts, says Elden. news is aware that the warning given to the man mentions how new investigations were carried out after the colonel complained. These investigations must have partly refuted individual elements, but the essential overall impression must not have been changed. As a lawyer for the man, Elden also reacts to the fact that the Norwegian Defense Forces now say that there have been no procedural errors in the handling of the case. He says that the man also disputes the milder reaction in the form of a warning. The man and his lawyer believe that there is also an open appeal against the warning. – He has also appealed against that warning without that complaint being finally decided, says Elden. Elden can also state that the officer has taken a prestigious further education in the Armed Forces after news published cases about the man. According to information shared by the lawyer with news, the man was taken “after an overall assessment” from the Norwegian Armed Forces. – Disappointing Caroline, who was one of the women who told about sexual pressure from the officer, reacts like this when she hears about the original legal recommendation and the handling of the case: – I think it is remarkable and disappointing that they put themselves in the lower echelon of what the Advocate General gave as a recommendation. Caroline is still employed by the Norwegian Armed Forces. She recently had a meeting with Chief of Defense Eirik Kristoffersen where she was thanked, among other things, for speaking up both internally and externally. Photo: Øyvind Bye Skille / news As she has understood it, the case is closed. She does not think they will take up the case again to give new reactions. – I think it is objectionable that the Norwegian Armed Forces, as an employer, allows him to continue as if nothing has really happened, she says to news today. Although she does not have very high hopes that there will be any changes in the case she was involved in. – But if nothing else, I hope that it has at least taught the Norwegian Armed Forces a great deal about how to look after whistleblowers, and what consequences gives people who have obviously stepped outside. – What do you think should come out of the debate that you have helped to start? – Firstly, the Armed Forces should look after whistleblowers in a better way. They should also dare to give a stricter reaction where it is appropriate. Read more of news’s stories about the Armed Forces:
ttn-69
The defense did not follow legal recommendations – news Norway – Overview of news from various parts of the country
