Preventive detention in the Baneheia case

One of the defendants in the “Baneheia case” was, in 2001, convicted of the homicide of an eight‑year‑old girl and of complicity in sexually assaulting her and her ten‑year‑old friend. Following the reopening of the case in 2023, he was also found guilty of the homicide of the ten‑year‑old girl.

Four days ago, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on sentencing and held that the appropriate sanction is preventive detention (forvaring) with a time frame of two years.

The defendant has already served a 19‑year custodial sentence for the offences of which he was convicted in 2002. The combined maximum penalty for those offences and the homicide for which he has now been convicted is 21 years of imprisonment. A new determinate custodial sentence could therefore not exceed two years. The Supreme Court found that there remains a real and immediate risk of repeated serious sexual offending. A two‑year custodial sentence would therefore not provide sufficient protection of the public, see section 40 of the Penal Code.

In its assessment, the Supreme Court emphasised that the defendant has been convicted of extremely serious acts which would, already in 2002, have justified preventive detention had he at that time been convicted on the basis of the factual circumstances now established. Although he has lived in the community for nearly ten years without committing serious offences, he was, in 2024, issued with a summary penalty (forelegg) for having, as recently as 2022, downloaded texts containing aggravated sexual depictions of children. This occurred while he was under investigation for the homicide of the ten‑year‑old girl. The Supreme Court also noted that the two court‑appointed experts had diagnosed him with dissocial personality disorder and paedophilia. The experts concluded that there is a high risk of repeated sexual abuse in the form of sexual violence. The defendant has neither acknowledged nor internalised what he has done, and shows no genuine remorse. He has a significant need for treatment, which he himself rejects. In the view of the Supreme Court, this is extremely serious and reinforces the experts’ risk assessment.

One justice dissented, taking the view that the sentence should have been two years of imprisonment. The minority placed decisive weight on the long lapse of time during which the defendant has been in employment and has not committed further offences, apart from the conduct that resulted in the summary penalty in 2024. The minority also took a different view of the weight to be accorded to the experts’ assessment.

The judgment provides guidance on the use of expert reports and on the interpretation of section 40 of the Penal Code, particularly in cases where a substantial period has passed since the commission of the criminal act.

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

Key paragraphs: 32, 33, 65

Justices: Webster, Arntzen, Berglund, Lund, Poulsen