He freaked out with an ax for half an hour and did 286,000 damage, but he doesn’t have to repair it. Oslo District Court: There was justified resentment.

The man attacked the landlord’s car and motorcycle with an ax after finding hidden cameras in the couple’s apartment. “Justified resentment,” writes the Oslo District Court on the damages.

The man does not end up in prison and does not have to pay compensation in full.

In June, the 64-year-old landlord was convicted in Oslo District Court because he had followed the tenant and her daughter with several small cameras for years. There was even a camera in the bathroom and two bedrooms in the house, which is located south of Oslo. He had bought and installed wireless cameras and “spy pens” from China.

The sentence for the owner was nine months in prison, four of them conditional.

Got loose with an ax

Now a new verdict has arrived in the wake of what happened when the illegal surveillance was discovered in the summer of 2018.

When the woman’s girlfriend found out about all the cameras, she took an ax and attacked the 64-year-old woman’s car. The car was damaged to the value of 250,000 crowns.
Soon after, he used the ax to damage the 64-year-old’s motorcycle before entering the department and destroying it. He used the ax to destroy a fuse box, a porch door, and an aquarium.

According to the verdict, the defendant explained that “he was angry, frustrated, sad and offended, all at the same time.”

Since the car was valued at NOK 136,000, the Oslo District Court estimates that the damage the man caused to the owner was NOK 286,000 in total. The defendant pleaded partially guilty after indictment when the case recently came to court.

The man got so angry because sometimes he himself lived in the apartment and even filmed himself in intimate situations with his girlfriend.

“Justified resentment”

According to the verdict of the Oslo District Court, the man behind the extensive damages does not have to serve a sentence. He has received a 90-day suspended sentence. The man also does not have to pay compensation for the damage he has caused the owner. On the other hand, you have to pay the state a fine of NOK 10,000.

Therefore, the punishment is less than the plaintiff’s claim for community punishment for 58 hours and that the defendant had to pay damages limited to NOK 72,085.

District Court Judge Sven Olav Solberg writes in the judgment that “given the very serious violation above, the defendant and the defendant’s girlfriend had been
exposed by the aggrieved, one finds in the judgment of the court clearly within a justified resentment.

The Penal Code establishes that the punishment can be set below the minimum penalty or a lighter type of punishment when the offender has acted with justified resentment.

As the case has aged, the court believes the correct thing to do is to impose a suspended prison sentence and an unconditional fine of 10,000 kronor. This means that the man does not have to serve a sentence.

Judge Solberg also writes that the damage lasted for half an hour and scared the neighbors. The convict did not surrender until the police arrived. In light of this and previous jurisprudence, the court believes that the starting point of the sentence here should be a prison sentence of 120 days.

No need to pay compensation

Regarding the issue of compensation, the court filed a claim that the defendant pay damages to his insurance company up to a limit of NOK 72,085.

The owner of the home had all his insurance in the same company, but the company has refused to cover other damages due to justified resentment on the part of the injured party. However, the company has paid for the car, since
Helmet coverage.

The car was sold to a body shop for approx. 70,000 crowns. Therefore, the loss to the insurance company was NOK 66,000.

The court determines that the basic conditions for compensation are met. However, the judge found an article in the Damage Act that, among other things, states that “liability for damages can be relaxed.” This can be done, among other things, when in special cases it is reasonable for the injured party to bear all or part of the damage.

Due to the poor finances of the defendant and the special nature of the case, the court believes that liability will appear unduly onerous for the person responsible and that liability should be reduced to zero.

Furthermore, during his explanation in court, the landlord has said that he is willing to cover the loss rather than the defendant in the case having to cover it. In this way, you are acquitted of the claim for damages.

Defender: A correct verdict

The defendant was defended in court by attorney Aase Karine Sigmond.

– I think it’s a correct verdict. The landlord was sentenced to prison for supervising the tenant. I think the verdict very well sums up what has happened for several years, Sigmond says.

However, he believes that in principle this should not have been a matter for the judicial system.

– It was not the offended person who reported my client. It was the police who created the case because the damage was so great. We are pleased with the outcome of the trial.