Sentencing for sexual assault of a sleeping person

The sentence for sovevoldtekt (sexual assault of a sleeping person) was initially set at 2 years and 4 months, but reduced by 10 months due to excessive case‑processing time.

On 1 July 2025, amendments were adopted to the rules on sexual offences. The statutory minimum sentence for sexual assault was repealed, and the legislature’s previous indication of a normal sentencing level of 4 years was not maintained. The question before the Supreme Court was what significance this has for determining the penalty in cases involving rape by sexual intercourse committed against a person who, due to sleep and/or intoxication, was incapable of resisting the act – also referred to as sovevoldtekt.

The Supreme Court noted that sexal assault constitutes a significant societal challenge, and that the harm caused may be substantial. General deterrence therefore plays an important role in regulating such offences. At the same time, sentencing in sexual assault cases has been criticised for being overly schematic. The purpose of the July 2025 amendment was accordingly to ensure that the sentencing gives sufficient weight to the circumstances of the individual case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court pointed out that the legislative amendments build on the understanding that today’s general sentencing level in sexual assault cases should largely be maintained, and that previous Supreme Court case law continues to provide guidance. However, it is no longer a requirement that deviations from the previously established sentencing level must be justified by special mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The penalty must be determined on the basis of an individual assessment of the circumstances of the act and the seriousness of the offence.

According to the legislature’s instruction, the sentence for sovevoldtekt should normally be set lower than for sexual assault committed by means of violence or threats. A broad assessment is required, with emphasis on factors such as the form of sexual act, duration, extent, and intensity. The degree of exploitation and the relationship between the parties – including any prior sexual contact preceding an impulsive act – are key factors. If the act is a brief, impulsive incident committed by a young and inexperienced offender against a peer, possibly under the influence of alcohol, considerable weight may be attached to this.

In the present case, the defendant and the victim had come into contact at the end of a party. Both were intoxicated. The victim lacked a mobile phone, transportation, and a place to stay, and therefore accompanied the defendant home. She lay down fully clothed on his bed and fell asleep. The defendant lay down in the same bed. During the night, he undressed the victim and engaged in intercourse with her. While she was naked from the waist down, he pulled one side of her buttocks aside and took a Snapchat photograph of her genital area.

The Supreme Court emphasised that vaginal intercourse had occurred. It regarded it as an aggravating factor that the defendant took a photograph in connection with the assault, even though it happened quickly. The ages of those involved also carried weight. At the time of the offence, the victim was 16 years and 11 months old, and the defendant was 19 years and 1 month. Although the victim was above the age of sexual consent, weight was given to her vulnerability as a young person. At the same time, it was taken into account that the defendant was also young and still developing and maturing.

There had been no prior intimate contact between the defendant and the victim, nor any other indications that the victim desired sexual contact. The lead‑up to and circumstances of the assault meant that the case did not fall within the core categories in which the legislature had indicated that the penalty should be markedly reduced. At the same time, the conduct shared features with the examples mentioned in the preparatory works, where youth, impulsivity, and possible intoxication may justify a lower sentencing level.

On this basis, the Supreme Court held that the offence would normally warrant a sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Due to the four‑year case‑processing time, which is particularly burdensome for a young person, the sentence was reduced by 10 months, resulting in a final sentence of 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.

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

Area of law: Criminal law. Sexual offences. Section 291 of the Penal Code. 

Key paragraphs: 17, 54, 70, 75

Justices: Øie, Webster, Falkanger, Bull, Bergsjø, Arntzen, Falch, Østensen Berglund, Berg, Steinsvik, Lund