Sexual assault against children committed on the Internet and deduction for time spent in de facto isolation

Justices: Øie, Noer, Bull, Ringnes, Arntzen

The Court of Appeal had stipulated the penalty for violation section 195 subsection 1 and subsection 2 (c), section 200 subsection 2 first sentence and subsection 3, and section 204a subsection 1 (a) of the Penal Code 1902, as well as the similar provision in section 311 subsection 1 of the Penal Code 2005, to seven years of imprisonment. The convicted person had over a period of more than a year encouraged a chat partner on line, who had committed several sexual assaults against his daughters aged nine and eleven, to commit these assaults. The Supreme Court found like the Court of Appeal that the encouragement of the other to masturbate until ejaculation over his own daughter's naked bottom had to be regarded as contribution to "sexual activity" under section 195 subsection 1 of the Penal Code 1902, and not as a "sexual act" under section 200. The contribution to the assaults against the daughters, considered in isolation, gave penalties of four years and one year of imprisonment, respectively. In addition to the contribution to the assaults against the chat partner's two daughters, the conviction concerned nearly two and half years of dealings with very gross genuine depictions of sexual assaults against children. This offence alone gave a penalty of three years of imprisonment. Due to building limitations at the relevant prison department, the convicted person had spent time with other inmates only two hours per day or less during a period of 60 days. The Supreme Court fund like the Court of Appeal that the strains this caused were so large that compensation had to granted. Section 83 subsection 2 of the Penal Code 2005 granting a deduction of one day for each commenced day of deprivation of liberty was given analogous application. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed.