Can Erna be punished? – VG

Prime Minister Erna Solberg is under investigation by the southeastern police district for violating infection control regulations after the family celebrated her 60th birthday.

She has gone flat, has been angry with herself, and has said that she, as prime minister, should know better.

Recently, she and her husband Sindre Finnes were questioned by the police. Investigators are ambitious to finish the case this week.

At the same time, the debate continues: can the Prime Minister really be fined after the birthday weekend?

Erna Solberg has explained that her husband Sindre Finnes had reserved a table on Friday for the extended family of 14 people. They were going to eat at the Hallingstuene restaurant.

However, the Prime Minister herself was unable to participate because she had an inflammation in one eye and had to travel to Ullevål hospital for treatment. The rest of the family, however, went to the restaurant and sat at three tables.

Solberg wrote on his Facebook page that this was prohibited: “The rules say that such a visit to a restaurant is considered an event, if it is more than 10 people.”

However, experts argue that the family broke the restaurant’s rules.

Bergen University law professor Hans Fredrik Marthinussen believes the prime minister may be punished for the family’s visit to the restaurant on Friday, even if she was not present.

– In principle, it is enough that she agrees that a birthday be organized and that this is against the rules. If you know your husband is beating the drum at a birthday dinner at a restaurant, then the usual strict rule is that you should say “no, Sindre, we don’t,” law professor Hans Fredrik Marthinussen tells VG.

You will be surprised if the police conclude that Solberg cannot be punished for complicity.

On the other side of the mountain, at the University of Oslo, law professor Alf Petter Høgberg disagrees. He believes that the visit to the restaurant is not covered by the regulations.

– If you consider the visit to the restaurant as an event, the responsibility of participation would be natural. However, as I have been informed of the case, the restaurant visit is nothing more than a restaurant visit, and a restaurant visit is not an event without further ado, Høgberg says, adding that:

– The fact that more than 10 people who eat at the same restaurant know each other does not make the visit to the restaurant an event. I make a reservation that I don’t know the fact well enough, says Høgberg.

Katrine Holter, associate professor of law at the Police Academy, says broadly that there is probably no clear conclusion with two lines below the answer. Covid-19 regulations are characterized by rushed work, and she believes that it is not always so clear what criminal “events” are.

– If, for example, a group of friends of 15 people visit a restaurant, it is probably a crime because it will be considered a public place. But there is enough room for some discretion, since it is not automatically worse to be in a restaurant with friends whenever you feel separated at different tables, than to sit there separated from other strangers.

– Courts must consider whether the law should be interpreted more strictly than the language dictates, for example because the act is innocent in nature. Punishing everyone who has exclusively contributed to others’ violations of infection control rules would probably go too far, Holter says.

VG has contacted the Buskerud area prosecutor for the southeast police district, Per Morten Sending. He does not want to comment on whether they are specifically investigating whether Erna Solberg can be punished for complicity.

– We want to do the necessary research before giving more information, write in a text message.

What about the holidays the next day?

On Saturday, the jubilee returned to Geilo after the visit to the hospital. Then the family of 14 met in an apartment where they ate sushi.

Since this meeting took place in a private home, several have argued that this was a violation of a recommendation and not a ban.

“We sat at a good distance, on two floors. But at one point there were 14 rooms in the apartment. There were too many based on the recommendation that was applied. It is a recommendation that I know well, because I have given it myself.” Solberg wrote on Facebook.

Professor Marthinussen believes, however, that even this meeting after a specific evaluation can be considered punishable, not just a violation of a recommendation.

If so, it’s up to legal wits, or a winter break freak, so to speak.

It is crucial to know how lawyers interpret the word ‘local’, as it follows from the regulations, and whether Solberg’s apartment can be considered as such.

– With regard to infection control considerations, there is little reason to delimit “venues” to smaller venues that are rented out for specific events, says Marthinussen.

Professor Høgberg again disagrees:

– The apartment is clearly not a “room” in the sense of the regulations, but a substitute for a private home for people who travel and should therefore be treated as a private home. In private homes, there was no visitor limit according to regulations, and of course serving alcohol in private homes is allowed, he says.

Associate Professor Katrine Holter thinks it is even more difficult to answer whether, for example, it is a crime to be together for 15 people in a hotel room.

– Because a hotel room is a room that is rented? The regulations mention hotels as an example of facilities, and a hotel room is part of the facilities of a hotel. But we don’t primarily think of hotel rooms when we hear the word local. The regulation can be read both ways. It will probably stick around and fall a bit into the prosecution’s judgment or the judge’s judgment, he says.

Erna ministry support

After Solberg’s infection control violation became known, the Ministry of Health and Care Services wrote a longer account on how the word “local” should be understood. This following a query from Dagbladet. Here, the ministry writes that the provision does not cover rented cabins and apartments, and therefore the sushi dinner was not punishable.

Professor Marthinussen believes that, at best, it is difficult for the ministry to get so directly involved in a case where the prime minister is being investigated.

– Most people, of course, can just forget to get a longer letter of support from the ministry on why the regulations weren’t meant to go as far as the text says.

The Oslo professor Høgberg again disagrees with the Bergen professor.

– I think it is good that the Ministry of Health is trying to clarify wide legal misunderstandings that are presented in a broad, categorical and unilateral way in various media. The gap mentality based on a failed legal foundation is never good, Høgberg says.

– In general, I think the authorities should consider whether they have gone too far in using general criminal threats to infection control regulations. It is not good for the legal certainty of citizens that they risk being punished according to hastily written rules, they are difficult to interpret and not always so well thought out, says associate professor Holter.