Sentencing for sexual assault of a person under the age of 14

On 1 July 2025, amendments were made to the rules on sexual offences. The statutory minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment for sexual assault involving intercourse towards a child under the age of 14 was repealed. At the same time, the legislature’s previous indication of a normal sentencing level of 4 years’ imprisonment for such offences was not maintained. The question before the Supreme Court was what significance this should have for sentencing in cases of rape by sexual intercourse committed against a child under 14, and for causing a child under 14 to perform sexual acts on themselves.

The defendant and the victim came into contact through an online chat service and agreed that they would be “girlfriend and boyfriend”, even though they had never met in person. The defendant induced the victim to send him nude photos and also sent nude photos of himself to the victim. On one occasion, the defendant persuaded the victim to masturbate while he watched via FaceTime. The parties met physically once, during which the defendant engaged in oral and vaginal intercourse with the victim.

The Supreme Court divided into a majority of 8 justices and a minority of 3. The majority noted that the legislature intended that the general sentencing level for sexual assault of children under 14 should be maintained. At the same time, the sentence is to be determined on the basis of an individual assessment of the circumstances of the act and the seriousness of the offence, in line with overarching principles of proportionality. This means that the full range of the statutory sentencing scale may be used to a greater extent than before.

In sentencing, sexual intercourse should generally be punished more severely than less invasive forms of sexual acts. The victim’s age is still to be a central factor. In comparable cases, however, the majority found that there should not be a sharp distinction in sentencing levels depending on whether the victim is just above or just below 14 years of age.

In determining the sentence for the rape by sexual intercourse, the majority took as its starting point that the defendant had, to a considerable extent, exploited the victim’s young age and inferior position. The defendant exploited the victim to such a degree that the ‘relationship’ between them carried limited weight. Nor was there any real reciprocity in the sexual activity. This called for a severe sentence. At the same time, two factors pointed in a mitigating direction compared with earlier case law. First, the victim was just under 14. The majority referred to the preparatory works, which indicate that there should no longer be a sharp distinction in sentencing depending on whether the victim is just under or just over 14. Second, the defendant was young and just over 18. The majority considered that the starting point for the rape by intercourse, viewed in isolation, would be 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

For the offence in which the defendant caused the victim to masturbate while he watched on FaceTime, the majority considered that the appropriate sentence, viewed in isolation, would be 9 months’ imprisonment. The majority emphasised that the offence lacked several of the elements that may make online abuse particularly serious. The conduct should therefore be assessed more leniently than a physical assault.

The majority found that the total sentence before mitigating circumstances should be 3 years’ imprisonment. This included two less serious offences that had some aggravating effect. Due to the case‑processing time and the time elapsed since the offences, the sentence was reduced by 7 months to 2 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. Of this, 9 months were suspended because the defendant had a slight impairment in his perception of reality as a result of an autism spectrum disorder.

The minority considered that the seriousness of the conduct, the degree of exploitation, and the lack of consent warranted a higher sentencing level. In the minority’s view, the specific circumstances meant that the victim’s age could only to a limited extent be given mitigating weight. The minority emphasised that the rape bore a clear character of exploitation and constituted a violation of the victim’s integrity. The sentence could therefore not be reduced on the basis of statements in the preparatory works on broader use of the sentencing scale or reduced emphasis on whether the victim is just under or over 14. According to the minority, such statements concern situations in which the parties are close in age and development, without this being sufficient for exemption from punishment, the child participates voluntarily, and the sexual activity is not degrading.

The minority considered that the total sentence should be 2 years and 11 months’ imprisonment, of which 9 months should be suspended due to the defendant’s personal circumstances.

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

Area of law: Criminal law. Sexual offences. Rape of a child under 14. Penal Code sections 299 and 300

Key paragraphs: 26, 28, 33, 39, 45

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