Father convicted of tearing up son – now Supreme Court has reversed verdict – NRK Vestland

The Supreme Court overturned the verdict after a father in the Gulating Court of Appeal was sentenced to two years in prison for vandalizing his six-week-old son.

The West Norwegian family’s case was then in its second round in the court system.

Previously, the man in his 40s was sentenced to five years in prison in district court. Now the whole case has been turned upside down in the judiciary.

The Supreme Court only dealt with the appeal against the application of the law and the grounds of the sentence related to the subjective guilt of the accused.

The Supreme Court has concluded that the application of the law by the Court of Appeal was correct, but that the grounds of the judgment were deficient.

This means that there may be a new main hearing in the Gulating Court of Appeal.

Different practices in Norway and Sweden

When NRK covered the case in the Court of Appeal, key issues for such cases were raised in the Norwegian judiciary.

The advocate for the child’s father and an expert pointed out that there is a completely different jurisprudence in Norway and Sweden.

Defense attorney Thomas Randby thought the case would be important because of the way the court should interpret the medical evidence from the rags.

In Sweden, a Supreme Court ruling has led to the need for stronger evidence than before to establish the so-called “shaken baby syndrome”; on the Norwegian cloth carving of young children.

Now the question is what happens next with the case and if it can have an impact in the field of cases with “shaken baby syndrome”.

Point out the lack of evidence

– The court should have indicated evidence that supports that the defendant took a conscious position to shake his son, even if it should cause an injury, the Supreme Court’s decision affirms.

Furthermore, it says:

“The judgment provides guidance on the content of the form of intention dolus eventualis and on the requirements of the grounds of the judgment when this form of intention is used, especially in cases of violent crimes.”

Excited for what happens next

UiB law professor Hans Fredrik Marthinussen is one of those who has followed the case and the recent verdict.

– What the Supreme Court has done now is to show that the Court of Appeal has not sufficiently proven that the father of the child has done something illegal. Now they have said that the intention requirement has not been used correctly. This will now be primarily a medical debate, he tells NRK.

He believes this means that there will be a new round of tribunals in the Court of Appeal.

– There will be a completely new round, where there will be a new medical debate on the evidence in the case, says the law professor, who is clear about one thing:

– It will be very important to make a decision on this case.

Want a new negotiation

Attorney John Christian Elden defends the boy’s father. He also believes that the case will be re-examined in the Court of Appeal.

– It is good that the Supreme Court did not accept the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Now is the time for a proper review of the case again, where the dissident professors can meet for a duel, Elden writes in a text message to NRK.

State prosecutor Benedikte Høgseth is awaiting how the Court of Appeal will resolve the reversal of the sentence. She tells NRK that she can be relevant with less oral listening.

– I am pleased that they only overturn the verdict and not the entire appeal hearing.