Housewife married to an ISIS jihadist punished for participation in a terrorist organisation
Supreme Court judgment 19 December 2022, HR-2022-2418-A, (case no. 22-069974STR-HRET), criminal case, appeal against judgment.
I. A (Counsel Magnus André Nordhus and Nils Christian Nordhus) v. The Public Prosecution Authority (Counsel Geir Evanger)
II. The Public Prosecution Authority (Counsel Geir Evanger) v. A (Counsel Magnus André Nordhus og Nils Christian Nordhus)
In the winter of 2013, a woman travelled to Syria, where she moved in with her husband who was affiliated with the terrorist organisation ISIS and participated in armed missions for them. She later had a child with him. After he died in 2015, she married another man who was also affiliated with ISIS, and had a child with him as well. The Supreme Court's majority of three justices concluded that she should be punished for participation in ISIL for the period from June 2013, when the penal provision against participation in a terrorist organisation was introduced, see section 147 of the Penal Code 1902 and section 136 a of the Penal Code 2005, until the turn of the year 2013/2014, when she was no longer a volunteer in Syria. The majority found that caring for one's own children cannot be punished as participation. However, the role of a spouse and housewife may be included as elements in a broader assessment of whether the defendant is a participant in the terrorist organisation in which the spouse participates as an active foreign fighter. During the period in question, she was an important supporter of her spouse by doing housework and taking good care of him at home. Thus she fulfilled the important role intended for women in ISIS. This was an active and sufficient contribution to maintaining the organisation. From the turn of the year 2013/2014, she wanted to return home to Norway, but was denied this by her spouse. From this point on, she carried out purely domestic tasks, without this implying any support for her spouse's activities as foreign fighters. The majority took as a starting point a sentence of two years and six months of imprisonment. However, there were significant mitigating circumstances. For over five years, she had lived in a coercive situation, with spouses who sexually abused her and subjected her to violence. The conditions in the Al-Hol refugee camp, where she stayed until January 2020, were also dangerous and inhumane. The sentence was set to one year and four months of imprisonment, which was considered to have been served on remand. Dissent 3-2.
Area of law: Criminal law. Section 136 a of the Penal Code.
Key paragraphs: 34-37, 48-50, 51-52, 73, 79 - 81
Justices: Noer, Ringnes, Falch, Bergh, Thyness