Man acquitted of violating the Animal Welfare Act because the criminal liability is time-barred

A man who had been banned from being responsible for animals was sentenced in the Court of Appeal to a fine of NOK 15,000 for violating the ban. The Supreme Court has found that the limitation period for criminal liability has expired, and the man is acquitted.

The case raised the question of which of the two penalties in Section 37 of the Animal Welfare Act applies when calculating the limitation period. If the ordinary maximum sentence is applied, the limitation period has expired. If, on the other hand, the stricter penalty for serious violations is decisive, the matter is not time-barred.

As a general rule, the highest general maximum penalty determines the limitation period, but this may be different after an individual assessment. In this case, the preparatory works provided evidence that the lowest maximum sentence had to be applied. The statements in the preparatory aimed directly at who has the competence to prosecute, but the Supreme Court found that the statements are also important for the issue of limitation.

The judgment provides guidance on the lapse of sentence due to limitation.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Limitation period for criminal liability, section 86 of the of the Penal Code, section 37 of the Animal Welfare Act

Key paragraphs: 31, 40–44

Justices: Øie, Falkanger, Berglund, Høgetveit Berg, Sæther