Psychiatric experts were legally disqualified

Justices: Møse, Falkanger, Ringnes, Falch, Høgetveit Berg

The psychiatric experts in a drug case had found that the defendant was not psychotic at the time of the reported acts. One of the experts had also served in another case against the defendant in 2001, where the same conclusion was reached. This case, as well as several others, was reopened after a new psychiatric report in 2007 had concluded that the defendant had been unaccountable since the 1990s. The defendant was acquitted in the new hearing of these cases. The Supreme Court took as its starting point that an expert is not disqualified because he or she has been appointed in a previous case against the defendant, see section 142 subsection 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Here, however, the expert's first statement had been set aside, with the effect that the defendant had served a sentence he should not have served. The strain had been considerable in light of the defendant's mental condition. In this particular situation, the surroundings would have had justifiable reason to doubt the expert's impartiality. Since one of the experts was disqualified, this also affected the other expert, as the two had worked together on their reports. The Court of Appeal's judgment and hearing and the District Court's judgment and hearing were set aside.