This is stated in a recent decision from the South Rogaland District Court. The district court justifies, among other things, the rejection that the press has no requirement to gain access to the “court documents” in an ongoing criminal case. Furthermore, they write that the threshold is also high to provide access to explanations given behind closed doors. “The starting point after this must be that some more must be given before access should be given,” the district court writes. They further write that the press should hear recordings of the explanation could have made it difficult for witnesses in the future. “Insight into the recording could lead to the fact that later witnesses in the same situation will either not explain themselves at all due to lack of confidence in the possibility of doing so without the danger of later publication, or set terms related to admission to want to explain,” they write in the decision. -Must read carefully it was the Norwegian Press Association and the Norwegian Editors’ Association that sent the access requirement to Sør-Rogaland District Court after Tone Ingebrigtsen was successful in closed doors during his explanation in court on April 28. – We will read this decision from the court carefully. But our first impression is that this is something we are likely to appeal, says Sindre Granly Meldalen, lawyer in the Norwegian Press Association, to news. Sindre Granly Meldalen, lawyer in the Norwegian Press Association. Photo: Lars Eivind Bones / Dagbladet Tone Ingebrigtsen had the right to refuse to explain himself as spouse to defendant Gjert Ingebrigtsen. As a premise, she set a testimony that the hall was cleared for all outside the court’s actors. The judges agreed to this. Tone Ingebrigtsen justified her claim for closed doors partly with the cross-pressure she stood between her children and her husband, and partly with the mental strain the press’s handling of the case meant for her and her family Sør-Rogaland District Court writes that they have a great understanding of her position. The desired insight the prosecutor and the offenders in the case wanted the court to hear the recording of the explanation. Assistant Attorney Mette Yvonne-Larsen and Jakob Ingebrigtsen. Photo: Ksenia Novikova / news The offended in the case, by assistant lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen, argues that secrecy is negative for them: It means that they cannot share what came out in the mother’s explanation, with their closest. Gjert Ingebrigtsen’s defender, Jon Christian Elden, has not made any claims related to access, but has argued that the case concerns private family relationships that do not have the public’s legitimate interest “in the entire process”. The district court writes that they agree with the fire at this point. – Incorrect basis The media organizations indicate that the principle of publicity is a supporting principle of legal security. They believe that the press should control on behalf of the public. However, the report of the Norwegian Press Association is not surprised that the press does not gain access. – It is the court that has closed the doors, and we have asked for access from the same court, so it is not surprising that they refuse access. But we believe that closure happened on the wrong ground, he says. – For the public, it is a problem that a central part of the puzzle in this case is not available. Published 09.05.2025, at. 16.51 Updated 09.05.2025, at. 17.00
ttn-69
