An order for reverse violence alarm was not in violation of the Constitution

In April 2024, the Public Prosecution Authority was granted a legal basis for imposing a reverse violence alarm (electronic monitoring) under section 222g, second option, of the Criminal Procedure Act, where it is deemed necessary in exceptional cases to prevent a criminal offence against another person.

A man was subjected to such monitoring based on conduct from 2008 and the perceived risk of new offences against the same aggrieved party.

The Supreme Court held that this did not violate Article 97 of the Constitution, which prohibits retroactive legislation. Unlike the first option in section 222g, the second optioninvolves a more forward-looking risk assessment.

In determining the applicable standard for assessing retroactivity, the Court referred to its earlier ruling in HR-2024-1737-A," electronic monitoring I". 

The Supreme Court found that the reasoning behind the prohibition of retroactive laws carries less weight in the context of the second option. As such, less compelling societal interests are required to justify retroactive application.

The Court concluded that the case was close to what is known as “improper retroactivity”, and that once the strict conditions for imposing a reverse violence alarm under the second option are met, there is little room to find a violation of Article 97.

In the specific case, the Supreme Court found that the order clearly did not violate the Constitution.

Read the order from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Article 97 of the Constitution, section 222 g of the Criminal Procedure Act

Key paragraphs: 53, 64, 65

Justices: Bull, Høgetveit Berg, Hellerslia, Stenvik, Sivertsen