Bertheussen is charged in the same section as the cake-throwers and well-known Islamists.

Laila Anita Bertheussen is due to appear in court on Tuesday, accused of threatening her own partner, former Justice Minister Tor Mikkel Wara. Several other ministers have been threatened in recent years.

Not many people are accused of having used “threats or in any other illegal way to have caused the danger that a member of the government or the Storting will be hindered or influenced in their activities”.

The last known case in which this section was used was against the Islamist Mohyeldeen Mohammad, who was convicted last fall of threatening then-MP Abid Raja (V).

He was sentenced to two years and three months in prison by the Borgarting Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court increased the sentence to two years and six months in prison.

The penalty can be increased to 16 years.

The Supreme Court believes that such threats are in fact an attack on the fundamental values ​​of an open and democratic society. Therefore, a longer unconditional prison sentence should be imposed.

Laila Anita Bertheussen’s trial begins Tuesday. Among other things, she is accused of the same section (see facts). Since the 55-year-old has been charged with seven episodes under section 115, the sentence can be increased to 16 years. Furthermore, there are other points in the indictment.

– At the moment I cannot say what the criminal complaint will be. In this assessment, we must also look at who is threatening and what is being threatened, says prosecutor and prosecutor Frederik Ranke.

Prosecutor: Family ties have little to say

What is special about the case against Bertheussen is that he is accused of threatening his own partner. State Attorney Ranke says he has little to say whether it is a family member or a stranger who is behind the threats.

– It is now the case that this provision does not operate with a requirement of purpose, but rather a requirement of intention. As long as you can show that there is an intention that there is danger of influencing a minister, you can be convicted, says Ranke.

– What is the basis of the accusation?

– We’ll come back to that in court. The main reason Bertheussen was arrested was that the property was increasingly protected. After the last incident, it could be ruled out that someone outside could be behind this. They then had good reason to be suspicious and the court confirmed the search of the house. The case has been extensively investigated. We also see a connection between the different events.

This means that the purpose of the action need not have been to prevent or influence “people in power.” It may well have another purpose, provided that it is considered probable or realizes the possibility that the action affects or hinders the Minister or the parliamentary representative in their activities.

– We take this case with the same seriousness as other cases in which government officials have been threatened, adds Ranke.

Has extensively researched

– Are you right to use paragraph 115 in this case?

– When someone threatens two ministers and a parliamentary representative, keep in mind that charges can be brought regardless of who threatens, responds Ranke.

– Rarely used

Johannes Husabø, a professor at the University of Bergen Law School, and PhD candidate Ingvild Bruce of the University of Oslo (UiO) say that this section is rarely used.

Aftenposten has found seven cases in which article 115 of the Penal Code or its predecessor (article 99 of the old Penal Code) has been used in recent years. It is quite possible that the section has been used in more cases than these.

• The student who threw a cake at then-Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen (SV) in 2005 was also charged. He was convicted in the Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court overturned the verdict because it is not clear from the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Court of Appeal whether the man’s intent (guilt) was properly assessed. The case ended when the man received a parole waiver with parole. It is the mildest reaction you can get.

Legal Expert: You have violated section 115

Ingvild Bruce is a researcher at the UiO Department of Public Law.

She says that while Bertheussen may have had another purpose for the prosecution’s actions – for example, to make it look like someone else had committed them – this does not prevent her from being convicted under the prosecution.

– If Bertheussen has in fact carried out the acts described in the indictment, in my opinion he has also violated section 115, says Bruce.

She emphasizes that while the purpose of the provision is primarily to protect politicians from people who try to stop them from doing their jobs, it does not require the person in question to have that purpose or purpose, Bruce says.

It adds that it is enough for Bertheussen to understand that the actions were likely appropriate to influence Wara and Tybring-Gjedde in their activities as Minister of State and member of the Storting, respectively.

Bruce refers to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling stating, among other things, that it is “important from the point of view of democracy that a minister is not prevented by illegal means from carrying out his activities, regardless of the motive of the person responsible for the obstruction. ”

– This indicates that Bertheussens can also be tried regardless of whether she really wanted to influence or hinder Wara and Tybring-Gjedde in their activities as politicians.

The fire: Does not comply with paragraph 115

Attorneys John Christian Elden and Bernt Heiberg will defend Bertheussen in court.

Elden writes in an email to Aftenposten that “we believe that Penal Code § 115 on attacks on democracy is shooting at targets in this case, but she still denies blame for the actions she is accused of. We put less emphasis on how the prosecution evaluates its own evidence in the media before a trial.