Vitaly Rustanovich (50) was arrested on the border with Russia when he was about to drive out of Norway on 11 October. The police seized the drones and his hard drive. The films showed that he had flown at least 47 times over large parts of southern Norway. Rustanovich was the first of four Russians who were arrested in October for flying a drone in Norway. He is not suspected of any form of espionage, but all flights on Norwegian territory are prohibited for Russians. It follows from the law on sanctions against Russia because of the war in Ukraine, according to PST. Defense attorney Tom Barth-Hofstad from Elden Advokatfirma believes the understanding of the rules has changed shortly before the arrests in October. – He is disappointed, and he wants to appeal the verdict, says Barth-Hofstad. – The punishment conflicts with what I believe to be a general sense of justice, says defense attorney Tom Barth-Hofstad. Photo: Mohammed Alayoubi / news – Too severe a punishment If he were to be found guilty, the sentence of 120 days in prison is unreasonable anyway, Barth-Hofstad believes. 120 days’ imprisonment has been given in several cases of negligent homicide in traffic and gross mistreatment of animals – see fact box. Examples of other cases that have resulted in 120 days in prison news has discussed, among other things, these cases that have resulted in 120 days of unconditional imprisonment: Several cases of negligent homicide in traffic, including for the man who ran over Stella Mwangi’s father and ran away. Negligent homicide during hunting, where a man in Troms shot his friend – who he thought was a fox. Gross animal abuse, where 220 pregnant sheep had to be euthanized because they were malnourished and sick. The Veireno boss let employees work up to 90 hours a week and committed a total of 1,085 violations of the Working Environment Act. Serious bodily harm and hate crime against a transgender person. Barth-Hofstad will not compare with completely different types of crime. In court, he drew a parallel to a case from 2011 that also dealt with violations of sanctions against a country: the ban on obtaining weapons for Somalia. The Court of Appeal concluded that 120 days in prison was an appropriate punishment for a man who had collected NOK 135,000 for the terrorist group al-Shabaab. The drone flight is – if it were to be illegal – reasonably innocent compared to financing al-Shabaab, the defender believes. – There is little case law in the area. But in this case, it breaks sharply and conflicts with what I believe to be a general sense of justice, says Barth-Hofstad. Professor: Important political backdrop Jørn Jacobsen is professor of law at the University of Bergen. Photo: University of Bergen Jørn Jacobsen is professor of law at the University of Bergen. – There is no doubt that it is a severe punishment. If you look at what the person has done in isolation, and we assume that it is only private drone filming, then in isolation it is a very strict reaction, says Jacobsen. At the same time, the offense is far more serious from another point of view, he emphasizes. – What seems to be the court’s perspective on this is the context in which it is happening, the background to the ban and the political situation – with Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The more you emphasize it, the more dramatic the action takes on, sir Jacobsen. – From one perspective, it is strict. From the other perspective, it is more understandable, but still quite strict. Protection of Norway Jacobsen points out that the use of drones can also have political purposes and that it can create unrest in the population. – Even if the action is trivial in one way, it threatens Norwegian sovereignty – at least on a somewhat abstract level. It is a consideration that is generally taken quite seriously in criminal law. It is probably an important premise behind the severe punishment. Since it is the first judgment of its kind, it is natural that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court agree to bring forward the appeal, Professor Jacobsen believes. – It is not so surprising if the Supreme Court decides on this, precisely because it is a special case with conflicting considerations that apply. We are in uncharted waters. The Russians’ use of drones can be considered a trivial offense or a violation of Norwegian sovereignty, depending on which perspective you look at it, says the law professor. Appeal on guilt too Defense attorney Tom Barth-Hofstad will appeal not only the sentence, but also the question of whether Rustanovitch is guilty at all. He points out that the Norwegian authorities themselves have changed their information about the sanctions. In court, he presented an archived copy of the site to the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority, where there was nothing to the effect that the flight ban applied to drones: According to the defender, the prosecutor only presented the updated version of the website in court. – It is obvious that the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority has double-communicated on its websites. The court has not mentioned this in one word, says Barth-Hofstad. Several leading lawyers have held that Russian private individuals cannot be punished for flying a drone in Norway, because drones are not registered aircraft. The Court of Appeal thought the same when they wanted to release Russian Andrey Yakunin from custody. The Supreme Court disagreed. Barth-Hofstad nevertheless challenged that perception. He believes the Oslo District Court should have gone deeper into it. – The courts must be invited to look at this again. We believe a clear interpretation of the provisions must be that the sanctions only apply to registered aircraft, says Barth-Hofstad. – I don’t think the regulation is intended to affect Russians in general. After all, this is a sanction to regulate measures that could harm Ukraine.
ttn-69
The same punishment for drone flying as for terrorist financing – news Troms and Finnmark
