Question of closed doors during Supreme Court hearing

Justices: Matningsdal, Bull, Bergsjø, Falch, Berglund

In a case regarding the interpretation of the requirements for a deferred sentence under section 459 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant had requested that the hearing be conducted behind closed doors in accordance with section 125 subsection 1 (b) of the Courts of Justice Act. The case has been referred to an oral hearing before a division of five justices. The request was made because counsel were planning to address personal and sensitive information regarding the convicted person's health. The Supreme Court, taking as a starting point that one should be restrictive about closing the doors to the public, stated that it was not necessary to address the health situation with regard to the general interpretation of the law with regard to section 459 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, information would emerge regarding physical ability, development of disease and diagnosis etc. of such a sensitive character that the requirements for closing the doors were met. Against this background, the doors were to be closed during long reports on the defendant's health. When it came to brief references to the documents, it was deemed sufficient that counsel pointed at the relevant paragraphs without reading them aloud. With reference to section 127 of the Courts of Justice Act, two persons were, upon the parties' request, allowed to attend the hearing in its entirety.