– I disagree with some of the Bureau’s assessments in this case, criminal law researcher and professor at the Norwegian Police Academy Morten Holmboe told Dagbladet.
This week it became clear that the Bureau of Police Affairs has closed the case against Agder police and former crime chief Arne Pedersen. They concluded that neither the police district nor Pedersen committed any criminal acts in connection with the reopening of the Baneheia case.
However, Holmboe believes the case requires even more in-depth assessments than the Bureau did in its investigation.
– This is not bicycle theft. It is one of the grossest cases we have seen, and it has caused irreparable damage, as the Attorney General himself said. It is very important that this is handled correctly, says the professor.
He believes that it should be reassessed whether it could be an error of service punishable by the individual or the police district.
Viggo Kristiansen’s lawyer, Arvid Sjødin, has already announced that he will appeal against the Bureau’s decision. In that case, the case goes directly to the Attorney General.
– The case deserves an evaluation at the Attorney General’s Office, Holmboe believes.
Dørum: – Court scandal
He thinks the investigative leader “does not remember”
The most important question in the Bureau’s investigation was whether the police deliberately withheld information about a rape complaint against Jan Helge Andersen.
The report was filed in 2009, seven years after Andersen and Viggo Kristiansen were sentenced for the Baneheia murders. It was an attack that Andersen allegedly committed as a teenager in 1993 or 1994.
From the conclusions of the Special Unit it appears, among other things, that:
- Several in the Agder police district was aware of the complaint against Andersen
- Also present Pedersen investigator had access to the case in the Police Case Management Tool
- However, this information was never presented for the Public Prosecutor or the Readmission Commission in relation to the total the seven petitions by Viggo Kristiansen to take up the case
- Prior to the request to reopen the case in 2019, Pedersen, as a retiree, was used by the police to file a setting not to reopen the case
- Here it was stated, among other things, that No information available “that Andersen has previously assaulted adults or children, or that he behaved in a threatening or violent manner.”
- The Bureau believes this speaks for Pedersen in reality I don’t remember seeing the rape reportpartly because so many people knew it.
- Pedersen himself is firmly convinced that he I didn’t know about the review against Andersen before it was presented by TV 2 in 2022
On Friday 21 October, the Attorney General decided to acquit Kristiansen after the case was reviewed by the Oslo police district.
– Victim of rumors and simple police work
– Amazing
Holmboe believes that there are in particular two parts of the argument in the Bureau referral that should be examined in more detail.
First, whether the police district did enough to ensure that those who worked with the police recommendation to the Readmission Commission were informed of the report filed against Andersen in 2009.
Kristiansen’s first petition for reopening was filed in 2008 and decided in 2010. Here, Kristiansen argued, among other things, that Andersen had blamed him for diverting attention from himself, Holmboe points out.
– It is surprising that the police district did not see the significance of such a case against Andersen in 2009 while the Re-enrollment Commission was dealing with the case. Even if district staff felt that Kristiansen was guilty, it was important that all relevant information was provided to the Readmission Commission, explains the professor and adds:
– And the fact that this case was before the commission could hardly be unknown to any employee of the district.
UNDERSTANDING THE CLAIM REQUEST: It is very understandable that Lawyer Sjødin has stated that he will appeal against the Bureau’s decision. The case deserves an evaluation by the Attorney General’s Office, says Professor Morten Holmboe of the Norwegian Police Academy. Photo: Caisa Hagfors / Dagbladet Line
sea View
– He should have done it thoroughly
Holmboe further points out that in 2019 the Agder Police District pleaded Kristiansen’s guilt by showing that it was “a very important part of the evidence that Jan Helge Andersen did not have the same acting and sexualized behavior” as Kristiansen.
This is despite Andersen being sued for an assault he is said to have committed before the age of 15.
– Since that case has been closed, it cannot be assumed that he committed this abuse. But the case is a relevant point in the lawsuit against Kristiansen, the professor says and continues:
– When not only did you not mention Andersen’s story, but also chose to use this argument about the lack of modus operandi, the police district would have to go to great lengths to make sure it was actually correct, Holmboe says.
I think the requirements have to be strict
The researcher points out that he himself has no basis for assessing what the Agder police district officers knew and did not know at this time about the case against Andersen.
He believes the Attorney General should look into this in more detail.
In such a serious case, the requirements for proper performance of duty must be stricter than in a less serious case, says Holmboe.
– If you believe there is no evidence that someone knew the information was incorrect, it could still be a gross negligence of service, either by individuals or collectively by the police district.
Stunned by “complete closure”
In his acquittal from the district, the Bureau points out that this information would not necessarily have been decisive for the reopening. Holmboe believes it is irrelevant.
– The police district obviously felt that the information was relevant, since it made this claim. The accusation must be objective. It is the commission that should determine the meaning of the information and the police district that should provide the information, says the professor.
Accuse the police: – He had an agreement
He is also surprised that the Bureau ended up with a full dismissal and not a so-called dismissal of the location of evidence.
– I was surprised. A more thorough assessment needs to be made if it is not considered grossly negligent to write that Andersen is unprecedented, when at the same time he had another case of compensation for victims of violence. This should be looked at with fresh eyes, concludes Holmboe.
Defender: Also asks for a more in-depth evaluation
Kristiansen’s defender Arvid Sjødin says he agrees with Holmboe’s assessment of the case.
He asks one thing in particular for the closure of the Bureau.
The defense attorney feels he did not look deeply enough into why the rape relationship was protected, meaning it was only available to a limited number of employees in police systems.
Sjødin reacts to the fact that they kept the shield even after it was abandoned.
An administrative employee explained to the Bureau that the shielding needed to be evaluated by a lawyer before the cases were closed, but that this was not always the case. So it didn’t happen with the report against Andersen.
– That means they must have already had a motive protecting the case. We call for a more in-depth evaluation of these elements, says Sjødin.
