“Does not work in a democratic society”.
“An acknowledgment of essential principles of distribution of power”.
“Populist and speculative”.
The words belong to state attorney Benedikte Høgseth, and are aimed at the head of the Norwegian navy.
The case is about how the Norwegian Navy stands up to the prosecution’s investigation into possible criminal matters that have occurred in the Norwegian Navy.
The prosecution believes that the chief of the navy has a problematic view of the rule of law in Norway.
One statement that the Norwegian Navy made during the major trial caused strong reactions from the state prosecutors.
The Navy indicated that in the future it may limit the information it will share with the police.
After the trial, the head of the navy did not want to answer NRK’s questions about what he meant.
Leads the investigation
The conflict revealed itself to the Hordaland District Court in connection with the “Helge Ingstad” trial.
The frigate collided with a tanker in November 2018. For eight weeks, the district court was presented with arguments for and against whether the commander of the watch on the frigate can be convicted for what he did – or did not do – when he was in command of the warship.
WRECK: After the accident, the frigate lay in the quays for almost four months. KNM “Helge Ingstad” was unable to save.
Photo: Ole Martin Wold / NTB
The public prosecutors want to convict the warden, while the warden himself claims to be innocent. He believes that systemic failure in the Navy caused him to act as he did.
A verdict in the case is expected in mid-May.
In Norway, it is the prosecuting authority that decides which criminal cases will be taken to court.
They lead the investigation, find out whether charges should be brought, and take the case to court.
In this case, the state attorneys Benedikte Høgseth and Magne Kvamme Sylta are prosecuting the case on behalf of the state.
But in this case, another state agency, the Norwegian Navy, has also been put in the witness box.
Will consider whether the Navy will be open in the future
When Rune Andersen, commander of the Norwegian Navy, was brought as a witness on behalf of the watch commander’s defenders, he gave his view on why the frigate accident happened.
He believes that the warden should not be punished. The accident occurred due to system failure, not the fault of an individual.
Furthermore, he said that the Navy shared all information that the police had requested in the investigation. The aim was to prevent accidents at sea in the future, to learn from the incident.
That the investigation could end with one individual alone being held responsible for the accident is not fair, he said.
– When the trial is over, we have to ask ourselves whether in the future we can be so open and self-examining if it ends with punishment, he said.
These statements caused the public prosecutors to react strongly. In her proceedings, state attorney Benedikte Høgseth said she felt compelled to address Andersen’s remarks that they have given the police so much access.
According to the public prosecutor, the Norwegian Navy gave the information the police asked for, and nothing more or less than that.
– We think it is populist and speculative for the head of the navy, Rune Andersen, to insinuate that this is the background for the indictment against the watch commander, she said in court.
Høgseth reacted strongly to the fact that Andersen said in his explanation that they had to consider whether they should be equally open in the future.
– In practice, it is an acknowledgment of absolutely essential principles of distribution of power. That information should only be given if there is no basis for criminal proceedings. Such assessments are not tenable and must be strongly distanced from, she said.
– Happens in countries we hardly want to compare ourselves to
After the trial was over, the state attorneys elaborated on what they thought to NRK.
– What he is saying is, in practice, that the Navy must manage prosecution issues. It doesn’t work in a democratic society, says State Attorney Benedikte Høgseth to NRK.
– It happens in countries we hardly want to compare ourselves with. So: Should the body being investigated have veto power?, says her partner Magne Kvamme Sylta.
Høgseth says that it should be no surprise that in a democratic society it is assumed that the Armed Forces contribute information the police ask for.
– We would have gained access to the information anyway, but it would have been strange to obtain a search warrant against another state body, says Høgseth.
– We cannot have an arrangement where a body can define what the prosecution deems appropriate to investigate. The public prosecutor’s office is an independent body. Neither the Armed Forces nor other state bodies can step in and check the prosecution, says Sylta.
Will not answer
In the time after the trial was over, NRK has tried to get an answer from Rune Andersen to the accusations from Høgseth and Sylta.
NRK has also tried to get an answer as to why Andersen believes that “when the trial is over, we have to ask ourselves if in the future we can be so open and self-examining if it ends with punishment”.
The navy’s press spokesman Michel Hayes says that Andersen does not want to comment on the prosecution’s claims in the proceedings until a verdict has been reached in the case.
He says that it is more natural to return to the issue after the verdict.
In his explanation, he said that the accident should not have happened and could have been avoided. After the accident, they worked to improve the safety culture in the Norwegian Navy.
– I am concerned that it may be counterproductive if the aftermath of this accident is that one person is blamed. There are many things to deal with in a major accident, he said in court, he said.
