Contribution and attempted contribution to aggravated drug offence - cannabis growing in a large and professional scale.
Supreme Court judgment 27 August 2020, HR-2020-1681-A, (case no. 20-015293STR-HRET), criminal case, appeal against judgment.
A (Counsel Trygve Staff) v. The Public Prosecution Authority (Counsel Alvar Randa)
Justices: Webster, Falkanger, Bull, Bergh, Thyness
A defendant had carried out practical tasks during the establishment of a cannabis plant, but he was remanded in custody for other offences before the production started. The Supreme Court stated that it was irrelevant for the question of contribution whether or not he planned to contribute further to the establishment and operation of the plant, as long as what he had actually accomplished in itself qualified as complicity. He could therefore be convicted of contribution to a completed offence for a lot that was already produced, and for contribution to a lot whose production had not started. The penalty for violation of section 162 subsection 2 of the Penal Code 1902, cf. subsection 1, cf. subsection 5, and section 162 subsection 2, cf. subsection 1, cf. subsection 5, cf. section 49, was 10 months of imprisonment after being coordinated with a different conviction, see section 64 of the Penal Code 1902.