Obstruction of justice

Justices: Indreberg, Normann, Kallerud, Arntzen, Sverdrup

The Court of Appeal had acquitted a woman for violation of section 158 subsection 1, cf. section 157 subsection, 1 cf. section 15 of the Penal Code. She had assisted her brother, who was indicted for extensive sexual assaults against his own daughter, in convincing the aggrieved person to withdraw her charges. The aggrieved person had been offered to take over a flat for which her father would pay the current expenses, and pressure had been exercised on her by stressing the negative consequences criminal proceedings would have for the entire family. The Supreme Court stated that section 157 of the Penal Code 157 was not limited to covering violence, threats or other negative behaviour. Also, the use of a means that is positive at the outset, alternatively in combination with other means, may be illegal and subject to criminal liability. When assessing this issue, aspects such as the participant's role in the judicial system, the relative strength between the parties, the age and vulnerability of the participant, the gravity of the main case as well as the nature and scope of the act of inducement could be significant. The Court of Appeal's acquittal was justified by the lack of proof that the defendant had exercised pressure on the aggrieved person. In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that this requirement of intent did not imply that pressure had to have been exercised on the aggrieved person, but that the relevant acts had to be suited to influence her. The Court of Appeal's judgment with the main hearing was set aside.