On Sunday, the bartender at the London pub, Andreas Woldseth, told about how he has struggled mentally after being at work on the night of 25 June da Zaniar Matapour though and killed two people outside the nightclub Per on the corner.
London pub is next door to Per on the corner in the center of Oslo and is a place for queers. Woldseth was in the bar when the shooting started and from there he witnessed two people being shot in the head and stomach.
Subsequently, he has been on sick leave, struggled with a lot of alcohol to forget, and to function in everyday life. In addition, he has struggled with sleep deprivation.
DEBATE POST: The betrayal of the victims of terrorism
– Today’s practice is too strict
Several victims of the mass shooting have been denied legal assistance in the aftermath of the mass shooting, something NRK mentioned first. Woldseth is one of those who applied for this, but was refused. In the justification, district court judge Anne Margrethe Lund argues that Woldseth “was not in the line of fire” of the killer.
MDG politician and lawyer, among other things profiled as a legal aid lawyer in the Baneheia case, Audun Beckstrøm, is not himself elected to the Storting and is active in district politics in Nordstrand in Oslo, but believes national politicians must consider whether the law should be changed.
Also read: This is the terrorist accused murderer
– PST has stated that they believe it was a terrorist attack. If one assumes that it was a terrorist attack against the queer community, I clearly believe that those who have been present at the nightclubs that were hit are to be regarded as aggrieved. It appears to those who were present at the nightspots that anyone could have been hit by the shots, says MDG politician and lawyer Audun Beckstrøm.
– If, according to current legislation and case law, the court finds that it cannot appoint legal counsel for victims who have been in the middle of a terrorist act, and who must have perceived it to mean that they were the target of the act, then I think the Storting must consider changing the legislation. Then the current practice is too strict.
He is not a Storting politician himself, but is supported by central justice politicians in the Storting. Bartender Woldseth said, among other things, this to Nettavisen about how he feels in the aftermath of the mass shooting:
– I tried to work after the attack, but now I have been on sick leave on and off. I have also struggled violently with alcohol after this and have been drinking to forget things, but also to function in everyday life.
He also pointed out that it should be easier to get legal aid for people who have been exposed to extreme situations.
Also read: Dramatic images from inside the London pub: – They shouted “They shouted lay down, lay down”
The Liberals are open to looking at changing the law
Venstre’s justice policy spokesperson, Ingvild Wetrhus Thorsvik, understands what the victims experience after the mass shooting.
– To put it carefully, it is not unnatural that those who have been present during the shooting experience psychological challenges afterwards and that many of them will need a legal aid lawyer. But it is important to point out that where other bodies can assist, for example with processing a trauma, the assistance lawyer should not come as support instead of other professions, she tells Nettavisen.
She points out that it is the courts that decide whether a person should get legal aid, but also advocates looking into whether the law needs to be changed if legal practice is too strict today.
Also read: The head of PST to Nettavisen: – Zaniar Matapour has been an IS sympathizer
– First and foremost, it is up to the courts to assess the extent to which the conditions under the Criminal Procedure Act have been met. We politicians, and anyone else, are free to criticize the courts. The way he (Andreas Woldseth, editor’s note) describes his situation afterwards, I can understand that he is frustrated and that he may need a lawyer to protect his rights, says Wetrhus Thorsvik.
– We have dynamic laws in this country. Those who exercise discretion do this against legal practice. It is also important that we secure the finances of the courts and ensure that there is no unnecessary use of money. But in cases like this (the mass shooting in Oslo) it may be relevant to look at whether the provisions in the law are too strict. It may be natural to look at several provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the fact that the terrorism provision is not included.
SE VIDEO: Here the murderer was caught and put to the ground
The FRP is open to considering a change in the law
A number of those who have not been appointed legal counsel by the district court have appealed the decision to the Borgarting Court of Appeal. The right to legal assistance is regulated in section 107 a of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The Progress Party (Frp) is open to seeing whether the law should be changed, but will wait until the Court of Appeal has dealt with the appeals.
– There may be grounds for looking at whether changes need to be made to the law. If the decisions of those who have appealed are upheld, it must be considered to look at the law. I find it difficult to believe that the Storting’s intention is for the court to interpret the law as strictly as it has been done here, and that it will be more difficult for victims to get legal assistance after what appears to be an act of terrorism, says the former Minister of Justice and current spokesman for justice policy in the FRP, Per-Willy Amundsen, to Nettavisen.
– Having said that, it is important for us Storting politicians to distinguish between the powers of the state and let the courts make their decisions. But here it may be relevant to look at possible changes.
Also read: Star lawyer John Christian Elden with jabs at PST and the media
The Labor Party is silent
The Labor Party, which itself was hit hard by the terror in the government quarter and on Utøya on 22 July 2011, chooses not to comment on the case. Justice policy spokesperson Maria Aasen-Svensrud refers to the Ministry of Justice and the statement they made to Nettavisen at the weekend.
Senior communications advisor Andreas Bjørklund wrote the following in an email to Nettavisen on Friday, in the absence of comments from a vacationing justice minister, Emilie Enger Mehl (Centre Party):
“The department refers to the district court. The Oslo district court has stated that if updated information from the police should indicate it, the district court will consider overturning the refusal they have made regarding the appointment of a legal aid attorney.
Who has the right to legal assistance is regulated by law (Criminal Procedure Act). Not everyone who has been offended in a criminal case has the right to legal assistance. There are restrictions according to the type of criminal offense one has been exposed to and the consequences the offense has had for the individual victim.
Victims who there is reason to believe will suffer “significant damage to their body or health” as a result of the act have the right to legal aid.”
Bjørklund emphasizes that it is the district courts that, following an application, assess and decide whether the conditions for being appointed a legal aid attorney are met.
–
