Criminal liability for visiting the residence of a protected individual who is not at home

A man was subejcted to a ban on visit under section 222 a subsection 2 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the provision, it may be prohibited to “pursue, visit or in any way contact another person". The question in this case was whether this also encompasses situations where the person subjected to the ban visits the residence of the protected individual while knowing that the person is not at home.

The Supreme Court referred to the principle of legality in criminal law, which stipulates that punishment may only be imposed when the act is covered by the wording of the provision. At the same time, the Court emphasised that penal provisions are also subject to interpretation. 

The Supreme Court found it most natural to interpret the wording of section 222 a subsection 2 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act as encompassing a person’s home, even when it is known that the person is not present. This interpretation is supported by the context of the other parts of section 222 a, and no other legal sources suggest a different interpretation.

On this basis, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The ruling provides guidance on the scope of a ban on visits under section 222 a of the Criminal Procedure Act, and on the possibility of imposing punishment for violations of such orders.

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

Area of law: Criminal law. Restraining order. Section 222 a of the Criminal Procedure Act. 

Key paragraphs: 30, 48–51

Justices: Webster, Bergh, Østensen Berglund, Stenvik, Poulsen