The court spent over an hour deciding whether to dismiss the case or not. In front of a packed court, the judges decided that the public prosecutor who brought the indictment against Bernt Waldow was incompetent. This is because the posters Waldow is accused of putting up were political, and the state attorney’s membership in the association thus shows political disagreement with the defendant’s political message. – The public prosecutor’s membership is apt to weaken confidence in her assessment, says the judge in court. The former lawyer Bernt Waldow is accused of “violating the peace of another by intimidating or troublesome behavior or other reckless behaviour”. Waldow is apparently in good spirits, joking and joking with his lawyers in court Monday morning. This is because he put up several “wanted” posters of public prosecutor Geir Evanger and police officer Jan Erik Bresil in Oslo. Photo: HEIKO JUNGE / NTB Bresil and Evanger are both involved in the drug policy association Norwegian Narcotics Police Association (NNPF) as chairman and deputy chairman of the board respectively. A committee concluded around two weeks ago that the police had not shown a good enough understanding of their role in their ties to the drug policy association. But before the Oslo District Court can decide whether the posters violated Bresil and Evanger, or whether they are protected by freedom of expression, they assess whether the trial can take place at all. On Sunday, it became known that the public prosecutor who brought charges against Waldow is himself a member of the NNPF. – Doesn’t hang on. That makes her incompetent, says defender Jon Wessel-Aas. He has asked the court to dismiss the case because of the issue of competence. – The defendant and the general public who follow see that here they have come out with a fresh statement in a political debate, satirically, with criticism of this whole mix of roles that this association and its representatives have stood for. And then the indictment is brought out by one of their members, said Wessel-Aas in court on Monday morning. – It does not make sense. No one thinks it is completely unproblematic. However, prosecutor Sigrid Morseth believes that a “passive membership” in the anti-drug association is not enough to be declared incompetent. She points out that in a number of previous cases and Supreme Court judgments about incompetence, association membership has not been enough to declare someone incompetent. Sigrid Morseth is the prosecutor in the case. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news Satire or offence? Through QR codes on the posters, you could access websites about the Role Understanding Committee and about operation HUNGER, a case Evanger was the prosecutor in. Defender Wessel-Aas believes the posters are satirical statements in a political debate. Prosecutor Evanger finds the posters “particularly unpleasant”, and wants 50,000 in compensation for having them hung up in Oslo. Jon Wessel-Aas defends Bengt Waldow in the case. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news Associate Professor Anine Kierulf at UiO is an expert on freedom of expression. She emphasizes that she is speaking about the matter on a general basis. In order for behavior to be affected by the section of the law that the posters are affected by, it must be worse to experience than “the everyday discomfort human intercourse can bring”, writes Kierulf in an email. – Being hanged as charged and wanted for criminal offenses with a name and picture, when one is not, can be qualified as troublesome, and can be affected in the first place. Photo: Julia Thommessen / news Thinks humor makes it difficult to interpret statements. At the same time, she points out that statements that are considered contributions to a public debate must be protected by freedom of expression. – To assess whether statements are protected, they must be interpreted. What do the expressions express – and how are they perceived? Is the message to annoy or hang out, or is it satirical social criticism of one of our state powers? Prosecutor Sigrid Morseth Photo: Julia Thommessen / news Nyheter Kierulf believes humor can make it more difficult to interpret the statements and how they are perceived. One must both assess how “ordinary people” or “ordinary spectators” understand the statements, and whether the person who made the statement understood this, and whether the hanged person found it distressing, she says. – All this is a question of evidence – how much do ordinary spectators know about the context and form of communication in which this satire plays a part?
ttn-69
Thinks the case must be dismissed – news Norway – Overview of news from various parts of the country
