No reduced sentence for electronic monitoringelektronisk kontroll

A man was sentenced to 48 days of imprisonment for five violations of a restraining order issued against a woman with whom he had previously been in a relationship. The Court of Appeal suspended 18 days of the sentence, on the grounds that the man had been subject to electronic monitoring in connection with the restraining order. He was required to wear an anklet for 50 days and was prohibited from entering Alta, where both he and the woman resided.

The Prosecution Authority argued that the electronic monitoring should not be taken into account in sentencing and therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the burden of being subject to electronic monitoring in connection with a restraining order may be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing. The extent of any reduction will depend on the degree of intrusiveness of the monitoring, both in terms of duration and scope. As the primary purpose of such measures is to protect others from harm, a high threshold must be met before any reduction may be granted. In this case, the monitoring was relatively short-term. Although the man was temporarily required to relocate from Alta, the Supreme Court found that the overall burden was not sufficiently severe to warrant a reduction in sentence. He therefore had to serve the remaining portion of the imprisonment term, after deduction for time spent in custody on remand. This outcome is consistent with the judgment of the District Court.

The ruling provides guidance on the assessment of whether electronic monitoring in connection with a restraining order may give a reduction in sentence. 

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (PDF)

Justices: Webster, Høgetveit Berg, Sæther, Sivertsen, Vang