The law does not prevent very similar wordings in District Court and Court of Appeal judgments

In an extensive criminal case against a former advocate, the Court of Appeal's reasoning was very similar to that of the District Court. The Supreme Court stated that although it is not in direct violation of the law if the Court of Appeal uses the same formulations as a lower instance, see section 41 subsection 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the procedure is nonetheless unfortunate as it may undermine confidence that the appellate instance has carried out an independent assessment of the case. However, the extensive hearing of the case in the Court of Appeal clearly showed that the Court of Appeal had carried out a complete, new review. It also had to be assumed that the Court of Appeal had not only made merely editorial adaptations of the District Court's judgment, but had also independently examined and assessed the evidence. The fact that some evidence without significance for the result had not been specifically mentioned was not a procedural error. If an error were committed in that the Court of Appeal built on evidentiary elements that had not been documented during the appeal hearing, such an error could not in any case have affected the contents of the judgment. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's procedure was dismissed.  

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Criminal procedure. Section 41 subsection 3 and section 331 subsection 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 

Key paragraphs: 19–20 og 55–58

Justices: Falkanger, Bull, Bergsjø, Arntzen, Thyness