Glancing into houses and filming, damages for non-economic loss

Justices: Endresen, Matheson, Noer, Bergh, Sæbø

A man who late at night had moved about in a residential area, glanced into houses, and on three occasions filmed or photographed young women on the inside, was indicted for violation of sections 266 and 298 of the Penal Code. The women were not identified. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for conviction under section 266 is that the perpetrator intends that the aggrieved party perceives the invasion of privacy. The Court of Appeal found that he had had no such intent. He could then not be convicted of violation of section 266 of the Penal Code. It is also an objective requirement, under both sections 266 and 266a, that the aggrieved party actually becomes aware of the harassing conduct. As this requirement was not met, he could not be convicted under section 266a. On one occasion, he had filmed a young woman wearing panties only. The Supreme Court found that this is covered by section 298 of the Penal Code on sexually offensive conduct. However, the Supreme Court found that filming and photographing of fully dressed women, which the women did not perceive to be sexually offensive, could not be covered by this provision. Nor could glancing from a general walkway into a flat where a young woman was visible wearing a T-shirt and panties. The Supreme Court found no basis for awarding damages for non-economic loss.