Zone for reversed violence alarm was disproportionately large

In a case involving violence against a former cohabitant and breach of a restraining order towards her, the Court of Appeal had established a zone with electronic monitoring imposed on the man subject to the restraining order, see section 57 subsection 2 (a) and section 57 subsection 5 first sentence of the Penal Code, which meant that he had to move from his hometown. Although he did not live there, it was the only place where he had a network of family and friends, and the health services he used were also located there. He was a person with limited resources. The risk that he and the aggrieved party would bump into each other at the local health centre was not sufficient to force him to move. The aggrieved party was not so frightened of him that she had to be shielded from the possibility of pumping into him. It was also emphasised that it was she who in most cases had initiated the contact when the restraining order was breached. The alternative set by the Court of Appeal was therefore considered disproportionate. The prohibition zone was established so that the convicted person' hometown was not included.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Criminal law. Section 57 of the Penal Code. 

Justices: Skoghøy, Matheson, Normann, Bergh, Thyness