Conviction of sleep rape in a military camp

Justices: Matningsdal, Møse, Normann, Arntzen, Thyness

In a case involving a sleep rape, see section 292 (a) of the Penal Code, cf. section 291 (b), two expert witnesses had given testimonies by telephone in the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court stated that neither of the statements was particularly important, see section 109a of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that their absence in court was not a procedural error. It could also not be established that it was a procedural error to hear statements over the telephone witfhout image transmission. One of the expert witnesses waited until a while after the hearing before she sent a written summary of her oral evidence to the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine for approval, see section 147 subsection 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the statement did not diverge from or add substantial points to her previous written statement to the Board, she had no obligation to submit a summary of her oral statement before the Court of Appeal. Thus, no procedural error was committed under section 147 subsection 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. There was no basis for concluding that the defendant had not been given a fair trial, see Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The defendant's appeal against the Court of Appeal's conviction was dismissed.