Removes penalties for small user doses

– The Supreme Court has in practice introduced the Solberg government’s proposal for decriminalization for drug addicts. They will no longer be arrested or fined, but helped.

It writes defender Jon Christian Elden in an SMS to Dagbladet on Friday. He calls the recent Supreme Court ruling “the greatest social policy reform of the century”.

The fire represented the drug addict, who was convicted of possessing four grams of heroin for his own use.

On Friday, it became clear the man was escaping punishment, even though the act is illegal.

– This is a decision where the Supreme Court strikes when the Storting fails in its formulations and decisions, Elden believes.

Katrine Holter at the Police Academy calls the decision “groundbreaking”.

Also Rett24 has mentioned the verdict.

“Not very appropriate to punish”

The Supreme Court refers, among other things, to “signals that were given during the Storting’s consideration of the drug reform”.

They emphasized, among other things, that the convicted person had used illegal drugs since the age of twelve and had been addicted to heroin since he was 20 years old.

– Although the majority did not support a general decriminalization of dealing with small amounts of drugs for their own use, there was cross-party agreement that it is not appropriate to punish heavily drug addicts for such offenses, writes Supreme Court.

They state that this judgment clarifies the meaning and scope of these legislative signals.

– Punishment not very suitable

In practice, the decision means that the drug addicts’ acquisition, possession and storage of up to five grams of heroin, amphetamine or cocaine for their own use, as a general rule, will not be punished.

The recommended threshold for a dose for personal use was set at five grams. This means that the police will have to close these cases in the future.

“The same applies to the actual use of the substances”, the Supreme Court writes further.

Professor at the Police Academy, Morten Holmboe, tells Dagbladet that the verdict is in good harmony with the cross-party agreement in the Storting.

– Even though the drug reform fell, there was cross-party agreement that the heavy drug addicts should not be punished. Here, the courts are in line with the will of the legislature, Holmboe points out.

Giving so-called sentencing waiver is the mildest punishment reaction we have, he explains.

– I read it as if here all the state powers have come to a realization that punishment is not very suitable for punishing heavy drug addicts, the researcher concludes.

– Pioneering

Katrine Holter, associate professor at the Police Academy and criminal law researcher, calls the verdict “a groundbreaking decision”.

To Dagbladet, she says that although it may seem that the court is now implementing the drug reform on its own, that is not really what is happening.

– The Supreme Court goes as far as they feel they can do without going against the legislator’s will. But what we see is no decriminalization. It is still in principle a criminal offense – even for heavy drug addicts – to use and store the mentioned drugs, says Holter.

The difference is that a reaction will not be imposed if such cases come to court, and the prosecuting authorities will grant a waiver of prosecution, the researcher explains. This means that the case is closed without further criminal prosecution.

– It is nevertheless worth noting that omissions to prosecute constitute criminal guilt and that it is considered a criminal law-like reaction. This will appear on an exhaustive police certificate, but not on an original police certificate.

24 days imprisonment

The Supreme Court also heard another case, in which the convicted person – who was also described as a heavy drug addict – had kept 7 grams of heroin for his own use.

The person in question did not receive a full exemption from punishment because he was above the threshold value of five grams, and was sentenced to 24 days probation.

– The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the legislative signals associated with the proposal for a drug reform had to be given significant weight in such a case as well. But the amount was above the indicative limit of five grams that was drawn up in the first case. It was therefore not relevant with sentencing waiver, it is stated in a statement from the court.

–