Sentence for obstruction of justice
Supreme Court judgment 12 May 2016, HR-2016-1015-A (case no. 2014/416), criminal case, appeal against judgment.
A (Counsel Arild Dyngeland) v. The public prosecution authority (Public prosecutor Morten Schjetne).
Justices: Utgård, Falch, Indreberg, Bull, Matningsdal
The sentence for five violations of section 132 a, subsection 1 b of the Penal Code was seven months of imprisonment. Following two civil cases before the district court, the convicted person had posted video clips on YouTube with extremely offensive statements about a deputy judge, a judge, an advocate and a registry officer. The aggrieved parties were identified by name and photo, and partly also by address and telephone number. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to formulate a general rule that retaliation against witnesses and parties is more serious than retaliation against professional parties, and that the sentence must be based on the circumstances in each case, irrespective of whom the retaliation was directed against. Two justices found that the sentence should be 90 days of imprisonment. Dissenting votes 3-2.