For a day and a half, the defender, the prosecution and an assistant lawyer have argued in the Supreme Court, which will pass judgment in the case where a policeman is accused of excessive use of force and serious bodily harm. After being acquitted in the District Court, he was sentenced to 120 days in prison in the Court of Appeal. There are now three possible outcomes in the Supreme Court: An acquittal. A sentence that goes down. Annulment of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, by saying that it does not provide a sufficient basis for assessing the law, and then the case may have to be heard again in the Court of Appeal. 14 strokes in a few seconds. That is the core of the dispute, while neither party denies the facts. The five Supreme Court judges will decide whether the police beatings in Kongsberg were legal – or punishable. The lawyers on both sides have pointed to previous examples in court which they believe are relevant, and the outcome there has gone in all directions. Case in principle First State Attorney Thomas Frøberg began his proceedings yesterday afternoon, after defense attorney John Christian Elden had presented his case for four hours. On Wednesday, he emphasized that the prosecution believes that the so-called closure of Kevin Simensen was illegal, and that it was thus he who was in emergency custody. And exactly emergency guardian is a key concept the court must decide on, because it is something the defendant has also invoked. Regarding the beatings, he believes that the police were outnumbered, and that there was no immediate danger to either the police officers or the lives and health of others. First State Attorney Thomas Frøberg believes the police officer used stronger means of force than the law allows. On the right, John Christian Elden defends, and in the middle, aid attorney Øystein Storrvik. Photo: Anders Haualand / news The prosecutor believes that the case must be seen as primarily an act of violence, and then decide whether the fact that he is a police officer is aggravating or mitigating. Frøberg believes the sentence in the Court of Appeal was too low, but still concluded that 120 days’ unconditional imprisonment is correct. – Contrary to the Court of Appeal, I believe that a deduction must be made in the sentence because the defendant’s use of violence was exercised in a situation in which he was obliged to get involved as a result of his role as a policeman, believes Frøberg, who said that the prosecution’s claim is that the appeal be thrown out . The accused policeman was present in court, but neither he nor other witnesses have explained themselves. Only the defense counsel, the prosecution and an assistant lawyer presented their views. Increased demands Kevin Simensen and Kristian Teigen are the two men who are offended in the case. None of them were present in the courtroom. Øystein Storrvik is their new legal aid lawyer, and he submitted a claim for a higher financial compensation than they were awarded in the Court of Appeal: There the court decided that Simensen should receive NOK 30,000. The new requirement is 80,000. Teigen received NOK 15,000 in the Court of Appeal, while he now believes he is entitled to NOK 25,000. – There is no doubt about what has actually happened in terms of violence. These are quite clearly actions that society must react to, said Storrvik in court, who believes that the compensation sum should be increased since they were inflicted by an official from whom one would not expect such a thing. Kevin Simensen and Kristian Teigen have submitted a larger compensation claim than they were awarded in the Court of Appeal. Photo: Caroline Utti / news – It’s not violence On Tuesday, Elden presented a recent report from the Norwegian Police Academy, which is about how police officers feel when they find themselves in the middle of dramatic situations and have to make a choice within seconds. In court, Elden was only allowed to refer to the general considerations in the report, not the points that dealt specifically with the Kongsberg case. He also pointed out, as in the Court of Appeal, that the police are not only allowed to use force such as blows, but that they can also make mistakes without being punished. This has also been said by the prosecution on its own initiative earlier in the case. At the same time, Elden is clear that he does not believe that a mistake was made on the night of 30 October two years ago, and that the blows were necessary in an attempt to gain control of a man who strongly resisted the police – Use of force is not violence, but an act of service, and ultimately a service obligation. Then it must be assessed whether it is necessary and proportionate, said Elden. In the district court a year and a half ago, the policeman was acquitted. In the Court of Appeal in April, he was sentenced to 120 days in unconditional prison. Published 13.11.2024, at 07.43 Updated 13.11.2024, at 13.50
ttn-69
The Supreme Court now has three choices – news Buskerud – Local news, TV and radio
