Stricter sentence for honour-motivated violence

The case concerned sentencing for aggravated assault, aggravated threats and unlawful deprivation of liberty. Three men subjected a female relative to violence, threats and unlawful deprivation of liberty in her own home in order to make her admit to an alleged extramarital relationship. The acts were motivated by a desire to restore or preserve the family’s honour.

The issue before the Supreme Court was the significance of the honour motive in sentencing.

The Supreme Court imposed a stricter sentence. Two of the defendants were sentenced to two years of imprisonment and the third to one year and six months.

The judgment establishes that an honour motive is an aggravating factor in sentencing, and that strong general deterrence considerations apply. Such motives are based on attitudes that are inconsistent with fundamental values such as personal liberty and self-determination, and represent socially harmful crime with significant negative consequences also for persons other than the direct victim. Although several typical features of honour-motivated violence – such as planning and acting together – are already covered by aggravating factors in section 77 of the Penal Code, the honour motive as such must be given independent weight in the overall assessment.

The judgment provides guidance on the significance of an honour motive in sentencing.

Read the judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: criminal law, sentencing

Key paragraphs: 21–23, 52–53, 55–56

Justices: Øie, Bergsjø, Thyness, Sæther, Vang