A woman in her 40s appeared in the Supreme Court on Thursday. She is accused of driving with THC, which is an intoxicating active ingredient in cannabis products, in her blood. After being stopped by the police while driving, a saliva test showed cannabis. The police then took the woman to the emergency room, where a blood sample was taken from her. When the amount of THC in her blood was recalculated as the limits are set in the law, it was found that she had a blood alcohol level of over 0.2. The woman herself says that she uses medication with cannabis in it, and that she had taken medication more than eight hours before driving. She believes she was clinically sober behind the wheel. Nevertheless, she was convicted. In the Supreme Court, she and the lawyer argue that the level of THC you have to have in your blood according to the law to be convicted is too low, so that you can be sentenced without having been under the influence of drugs. After the Supreme Court decided to take the case in July, courts and police districts throughout the country have decided to await the processing of similar cases like hers. This is shown by a survey carried out by news. The exceptions are the district court in Western Finnmark, Inner and Eastern Finnmark, Hordaland, Søndre Østfold and Møre og Romsdal. Sogn og Fjordane District Court has not responded to news’s repeated inquiries. In total, there are 23 district courts in Norway. This is how the courts respond: Sogn og Fjordane district court has not answered news’s repeated inquiries. Oslo District Court and Ringerike, Asker and Bærum District Court wrote this summer, according to Advokatbladet, a letter to the police districts asking them to stop sending similar cases to them for processing. The Vestre Finnmark District Court writes to news that they comply with the adopted law and regulations, and have not put the cases on hold. The Telemark district court, in dialogue with the Sør-East police district, has put similar cases on hold. The Lofoten and Salten district court has not received such cases from the police district recently, but would wait until the Supreme Court judgment was ready if they received it. Midtre Hålogaland district court has, in consultation with the prosecution, decided to await clarification from the Supreme Court. Haugaland and Sunnhordaland district court are awaiting processing of similar cases, although the Sør-West police district is not waiting. Romerike and Glåmdal district court are waiting for the decision from the Supreme Court. The same is done by the prosecuting authority in the relevant police district. Trøndelag district court is awaiting the Supreme Court verdict because Trøndelag police district is waiting, and not sending them cases. Østre Innlandet district court is also waiting after the Innlandet police district told them that they will wait to send cases for consideration in the court. Follo and Nordre Østfold district court decided not to process similar cases at the same time as the other Østlands district courts. The East Police District decided the same at the same time. Nord-Troms and Senja District Court has returned two cases to the police pending clarification from the Supreme Court. The police do not send them new cases until the verdict is ready. The District Court writes that the reason for this is the issue of legal certainty. The Vestre Innlandet district court writes that they do not deal with similar cases because the Innlandet police district decided to wait for the proceedings in anticipation of the Supreme Court verdict. Vestfold district court states that the Sør-East police district has withdrawn several cases pending the decision of the Supreme Court. Magistrate Jørn Holme clarified to the judges that they should wait for similar cases after news made contact. Hordaland District Court writes that similar cases proceed as planned after an assessment in consultation with the police. At the same time, communications advisor Janne Karin Værnø writes that the issue “can be raised in case preparation in individual cases”. The District Court does not have an overview of which cases are affected by the issue, but says that at least one case was postponed after both the defender and the prosecutor requested it. Agder district court has not itself made an assessment as to whether they want to postpone the processing of cases, but has not received similar cases from the prosecuting authority in the police since the beginning of September, states magistrate Robert Versland. Møre and Romsdal District Court processes the cases in the usual way until the Supreme Court possibly says otherwise. This was considered in consultation with the police, says magistrate Kirsti Høegh Bjørneset. Buskerud district court has stopped several cases concerning driving under the influence of THC and which can be assumed to be influenced by the outcome of the Supreme Court’s processing of appeals. The cases have been returned to the police for a possible new prosecutorial assessment after the Supreme Court’s verdict has been handed down, deputy chairwoman Anne Kristin Vike writes to news. Helgeland district court is awaiting processing until the Supreme Court verdict is ready, says magistrate Rolf Selfors. The Sør-Rogaland district court states that the police district stopped sending similar cases in parallel with the Oslo district court’s decision. Indre og Østre Finnmark District Court states that they have not made any assessment as to whether similar cases should be postponed until after the Supreme Court’s verdict. Head of administration Kari Mette Foslund writes that the district court has not had such a case, but does not specify in which period this applies. Søndre Østfold District Court states that they have not decided to stop processing similar cases, but that the East Police District has stopped the transmission of cases pending the court ruling. – The question of legal certainty – The reason for waiting is naturally the question of legal certainty, writes deputy chairman Harald Tore Roaldsen in Nord-Troms and Senja district court in an e-mail to news. He is deputy chairman of one of the 17 district courts awaiting the Supreme Court verdict. In Nord-Troms and Senja, two cases have been returned to the police in consultation with them. – The Supreme Court must assess the legality of the criminality limit in regulations on THC influence, which in turn may mean that the legislature will have to change the value for the limits for THC influence, writes Roaldsen further. – A sign of health for the rule of law Law professor Jon Petter Rui believes the courts are wise to put the processing of the cases on hold. – When there is uncertainty about such a central premise for the use of punishment, I think it is a sign of health for the rule of law that people stop. This is not a legal issue, it is a chemical issue that we need to get clarification on, he says to news. Rui says that the regulation must be changed if the Supreme Court considers that the level in the law is too low. This is the current level of punishment: 0.004 micromoles of THC per liter of blood (should correspond to 0.2 per thousand): Fine 0.010 micromoles of THC per liter of blood (should correspond to between 0.5 and 1.2 per thousand): Fine, suspended prison term, disqualified from driving for at least one year. 0.030 micromoles of THC per liter of blood (must correspond to over 1.2 per thousand): Unconditional imprisonment, fine, disqualified from driving for at least one year. Source: Regulation on the influence of drugs other than alcohol – When you are going to punish someone for being under the influence and driving a motor vehicle, it is in the nature of the matter that the THC level must be so high that it has an impact on your ability to drive. Anything else would be strange and not carried out. – It would be pointless to punish people who have a substance in their blood that will not affect your ability to drive. It will be an arbitrary punishment, a punishment without purpose, he says. Jon Petter Rui is a law professor at the University of Bergen. Photo: Bjørn Olav Nordahl Over 25,000 car drivers have had THC detected in their blood since 2013, according to the drug statistics of Oslo University Hospital. – If the Supreme Court decides that the level is too low, what will happen to all those sentenced according to the current level? – You can then request that the case be reopened at the Re-admission Commission on the basis of new circumstances. The case may lead to a change in the law. There are five district courts that have decided to continue to hear cases where the defendant is said to have driven with a small amount of THC in his blood. – We decided not to wait with the processing of cases regarding the regulatory limits for THC in the blood. This is justified by the fact that we have complied with the adopted law and regulations, writes magistrate Torbjørn Saggau Holm in an e-mail to news. The courtroom was full of people when the Supreme Court was to decide on Thursday whether the limit values for the amount of cannabis you can have in your blood while driving are too low. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news In the Telemark district court, both more and less serious drink-driving cases have been considered. They have asked the South-Eastern Police District to assess whether the overall picture of evidence indicates that cases with conversion to over 0.5 per thousand should be waited for. These are therefore cases where the blood alcohol level is considered to be higher than 0.5 due to the level of THC found in the defendant’s blood. – We have experienced a lower number of cases also in cases with a calculated THC influence above 0.5 per thousand, and that certain cases that had been sent over for sentencing have been withdrawn after a closer review by the prosecutor, writes the magistrate. District courts and police districts have not agreed in all parts of the country. In some parts of the country, it is the police who have decided to wait to send the cases to the district court until the Supreme Court has clarified. But in Haugaland and Sunnhordland District Court, three unprocessed cases are pending, because the police district did not stop processing them. – The Court then decided that consideration of these cases should be put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s consideration, writes Magistrate Tine Odland to news.
ttn-69
The Supreme Court considers the cannabis blood alcohol limit – 17 district courts await the verdict – news Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
