The conditions for committal to psychiatric care were met

A 30-year-old man had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia following a comprehensive forensic psychiatric evaluation. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether he should be committed to psychiatric care on the grounds that he posed a danger to society.

The case primarily concerned the interpretation and application of the statutory requirement of a likely risk of another serious violation of someone's integrity, and whether a judicial order for committal to mental health care was necessary to safeguard the public.

The offender, who was deemed unaccountable, was charged with multiple offences. The most serious were bodily harm under section 273 of the Penal Code, sexual act performed without consent under section 297, and sexually offensive conduct towards children under 16 under section 305 (a). The indictment also included two counts of harassing conduct under section 266 and one count of threat under section 263.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that all conditions set out in section 62 subsection 1 of the Penal Code, in conjunction with subsection 3, were met for ordering committal to psychiatric care. In the light of the offences, the diagnosis, medical history, the offender’s low cognitive functioning, his overall behaviour and the expert assessment, the majority concluded that a serious violation of someone's integrity was imminent unless the offender was subjected to this special criminal sanction. Administrative psychiatric care under chapter 3 of the Psychiatric Care Act was deemed insufficient.

The minority found the treatment plan currently in place within the compulsory psychatric care system sufficient to protect society from further serious offences.

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

Areas of law: Criminal law, section 62 of the Penal Code. The Psychiatric Care Act. 

Key paragraphs: 29, 51, 60, 64

Justices: Bull, Arntzen, Høgetveit Berg, Steinsvik, Vang