Criminal liability for possession of sexual materials was not time-barredseksuelt materiale var ikke foreldet

The defendant was sentenced by the Court of Appeal to a five-month suspended prison term for possession of material sexualising children and for possession of a small quantity of marijuana.

Nearly six years had passed from the time the defendant was charged until the indictment was issued. During this period, there was a span of more than three and a half years during which the police did not know the defendant’s whereabouts and made little effort to locate him.

The ordinary limitation periods had been interrupted, meaning that under the general rules of the Penal Code, the offences were not time-barred. However, pursuant to section 88 subsection 2 second sentence of the Penal Code, such interruptions lose their effect if the prosecution is suspended for an indefinite period.

The Supreme Court concluded — with some doubt — that the criminal liability for possession of material sexualising children was not time-barred, whereas the offence of marijuana possession was.

Whether the prosecution has been suspended for an indefinite period depends on an overall assessment. A case will only be considered suspended on this basis under fairly strict conditions. In addition to the duration of the prosecution authority’s inactivity, it is relevant whether the accused had reasonable grounds to believe that the case had been discontinued. The more serious the offence, the higher the threshold for considering the prosecution to have been suspended indefinitely.

The judgment clarifies when an interruption of the criminal limitation period loses its effect due to the prosecution being suspended for an indefinite period.

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

Areas of law: Criminal law. Limitation. Section 88 subsection 2 second sentence of the Penal Code.

Key paragraphs: 23–26

Justices: Falkanger, Bergh, Thyness, Hellerslia, Poulsen