The Supreme Court will decide whether the police went too far when two women were fined after a party – news Vestland

It was in November 2020 that the police raided two parties in Bergen. At one of these parties, in Sandviken, 15 people gathered. 14 of these were cited by the police for breaching the local infection control measures in Bergen municipality, which said a maximum of five could be together at that time. The majority accepted the penalty of NOK 5,000, but two women, who were fined NOK 5,000 and NOK 10,000 respectively, refused to pay. Thus the case ended up in the court system. First they lost in Hordaland district court. They then won in the Gulating Court of Appeal. But the prosecution thought the case was so fundamentally important that they appealed to the Supreme Court. The question is simply whether the municipalities had the right to adopt such strict and intrusive measures against people. Despite the fact that it was a pandemic. Elden: How far can the state go? The highest court in Norway today started processing the case from Bergen, together with a case from Oslo which also concerns a breach of the infection control regulations. – The Supreme Court has adjourned for three days. Then I get to try the principle aspects of the corona fines. It is important that the state does not resort to intrusive measures against citizens in “the service of the good”, writes lawyer John Christian Elden in a comment. He represents the two women from Bergen, and a man from Oslo who was also fined for violating local infection control measures when he was at a party in Oslo in March 2021. Lawyer John Christian Elden believes that one must look at how far the municipalities can go towards folk. Photo: Thomas Hagajore Fosse / Thomas Hagajore Fosse – It is an advantage that we are a bit behind the pandemic. It means that you can have a little more cold blood in your veins, and that you see what was actually necessary – and what was punishable, he says to TV 2. The prosecutor: – Must think about the situation in 2020 State Attorney Rudolf Christoffersen, who is prosecutor for the Bergens case in the Supreme Court, it is clear that there is a big difference between November 2020 and October 2022. – In November 2020, no one was vaccinated. The number of infections increased sharply every day, especially in Bergen. And there was fear that without effective infection control measures, a new closure of society would have to be initiated. With the consequences it will have had, he says. They appealed the verdict from the Gulating Court of Appeal against the women. According to Christoffersen, they believe that the Court of Appeal has made a mistake. – I believe that they have built on an incorrect understanding of the infection control legislation and the conditions there. In addition, I believe that the Court of Appeal has over-examined the city council in Bergen and the medical and political assessments that were the basis for the regulation, he says. State Attorney Rudolf Christoffersen believes it is important to look at the case in the light of how the situation was in November 2020. Photo: Eirik Johnsen / news Can get the money back An overview news has received from the West police district shows that a summons was issued during the pandemic for NOK 440,000 for breaching the infection control regulations in connection with parties. All are in Bergen in the period November/December 2020, and May 2021. A total of 57 people have received notices. Figures from the Directorate of Police show that in 2020 and 2021 there were a total of around 3,800 cases in Norway where people were reported to the police for conditions related to corona. 3,000 of these were in 2021. The majority (83 per cent) were in breach of infection control measures. State Attorney Rudolf Christoffersen believes it is too early to say concretely what will happen if the acquittal from the Court of Appeal is upheld. But it is in the cards that the proposal from the party in Sandviken will be cancelled. Lawyer John Christian Elden has previously stated to news that the judgment from the Court of Appeal must have significance for all corona fines.



ttn-69