Deferred execution of sentence due to mental ilness

Justices: Matningsdal, Bull, Bergsjø, Falch, Berglund 

A defendant had been denied a deferred execution of sentence under section 459 of the Criminal Procedure Act due to mental illness. The rejection of the application was upheld by the District Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, and that under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Act could only review the Court of Appeal's general interpretation of the law, arrived at the same conclusion. The Supreme Court stated with reference to the history of law that the expression "serious mental illness" in section 459 must be interpreted in the same manner as "psychotic" in section 20 subsection 1 (b) of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal had correctly based its decision on psychosis being a narrower term under criminal law than in medicine, and landed on a correct assessment of the expression "serious mental illness". The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the requirement for deferment under section 459 subsection 1 first option was not met. A majority of three justices found that the requirement under section 459 subsection 1 second option was not met either, and stated that the requirement for deferment under this option is strict. In summary, an overall assessment must be made, in which a number of aspects may be relevant, of whether execution is inadvisable. The majority found that the Court of Appeal had discussed the relevant aspects in an adequate manner. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's order was dismissed.