– It upsets me that Norwegian judges must be the only professional group that does not make mistakes in their job. Show me the judge who will admit that he or she has wrongly sentenced a person to a longer prison term.
– I have never met a judge who admits mistakes. Nor do judges who have had their judgment overturned by a higher court admit mistakes, says Morten Kjensli at Advokatfirmaet Rogstad.
He is one of the pioneers in Norwegian criminal law. Now Kjensli is worried about legal certainty. A rule of law he believes has deteriorated.
Ask the Attorney General to intervene
“The judiciary is failing”
– I’m glad I’ve never been prosecuted for something I didn’t do. My experience after working as a lawyer since 1976 is that the judiciary largely fails, Kjensli tells Dagbladet.
He has noticed a changed attitude in criminal law. Where previously there was supposed to be room for real doubt.
– I miss two types of person in criminal law; the sheriff who instilled trust and security, and the magistrate who displayed the sound judgment of a judge. A magistrate who followed every part of the body, and did not look down at the PC, as today’s judges do during court proceedings, says Kjensli.
In front of Dagbladet, Kjensli elaborates on his uneasiness:
– My feeling is that today’s judges do not understand what is happening. They do not observe witnesses and parties, but are only interested in what is said. It is an impression that has stuck, and which really worries me, says Kjensli.
– God help me
“Biased Judges”
He also experiences that convictions are handed down, despite the fact that, in his opinion, the evidence has not been good enough.
– Why it has become like this, I don’t know. I have spoken to many colleagues who have the same opinion. It is difficult to prove such criticism, and it is even more difficult to raise it with the judge. My fear, and that of my colleagues, is that a criticism of a judge may affect the clients. We meet the judges again, and then the criticism can be passed on to the client.
JUDGES: Lawyer Morten Kjensli believes that many judges are prejudiced. Photo: Gorm Kallestad / NTB Show more
Kjensli’s experience is that many judges are prejudiced.
– For the sake of the clients, I neither can nor will I give specific examples. In today’s criminal law, the judges are all too ready to accept the prosecution’s arguments, without having the necessary critical attitude towards arguments and the evidence presented.
“A weakened judiciary”
Kjensli also believes that the judiciary has been weakened, after the legislature changed the rules of the game, so that a defendant no longer has the right to have his case tried before two courts.
A few years ago, the jury system was removed, the reasoning being that there would be more correct decisions.
– The reality was that the authorities disliked a number of acquittals that the juries came up with, so the jury system was removed, says Kjensli.
DISAPPOINTED: Eirik Jensen is disappointed by the professional judges’ decision, and believes that the Court of Appeal is spitting on the jury. Video: Nicolai Delebekk Photo: Bjørn Langsem Show more
The experienced lawyer is also upset that judges accept lies and obviously incorrect explanations.
– I have experienced several times that the police have deliberately given incorrect explanations in court. We also experience that civilian witnesses obviously lie when they testify in court. I still have the benefit of experiencing a witness who has given a false statement being reported by a judge. I don’t understand any of that:
– In my world, there is no greater negligence than giving false testimony in court, says Morten Kjensli.
– What about witnesses who do not want to answer the questions?
– There are no consequences either, even if there is an obligation to testify. Which in turn can lead to incorrect judgments, says Morten Kjensli and concludes:
– My conclusion is that there are far more judicial murders in Norway today than in the past.
Reported ex-cohabitants: – A nightmare
Responds to criticism
Dagbladet has submitted the criticism Kjensli directs against the referees, for Ina Strømstad, who is a member of the referees’ media group.
Strømstad responds to the criticism as follows:
“We are always keen to make things better. That is why we appreciate Morten Kjensli sharing his views. That we are seen in the cards by the public and a vigilant press are important contributions to this. He criticizes judges for not admitting mistakes. I can understand that this can be perceived as judges being arrogant. But the system is not such that mistakes are corrected by the judge admitting them. Instead, the parties can appeal the decision to a higher court, if they believe that the judge has made a mistake.”
THE WORST: – Recent years’ revelations of judicial murders have made a big impression on us. It is the worst thing a judge can experience, says judge Ina Strømstad in the judges’ media group. Photo: Lise Åserud / NTB Show more
She believes all judges, like herself, read the Court of Appeal’s decision carefully and learn from it.
“I also mention that we have a supervisory board for judges where the parties can complain about the conduct of judges. A complaint there is something we take seriously and try to learn from any criticism from the Supervisory Board. Of course, we cannot guarantee that mistakes will never happen. The revelations of judicial murders in recent years have made a big impression on us. It is the worst thing a judge can experience. That is why we are constantly working to avoid it,” she writes.
She points out that Kjensli criticizes judges for spending time in court writing down what is said, rather than observing the witnesses.
Lawyer and leader of the defense group in the Norwegian Bar Association, Marius Dietrichson, believes that Viggo Kristiansen can expect a large compensation sum if he were to be acquitted of the murders in Baneheia, May 2000. Reporter/video: Bjørge Dahle Johansen / Dagbladet TV Show more
“I understand that he feels that the screens in court create distance from his partner and witnesses. That I can understand. At the same time, it is important to take in what is said in court – often a small detail can be important. Many of us like to take notes to make sure we don’t miss important information. That is why we look forward to the day when we get sound and video recordings in court, which ensures that the information is also available when we are finished in court and have to write the decision”.
Strømstad also mentions that judges have had a lot of training in the psychology of witnesses in recent years.
“I therefore hope that Kjensli does not think that we are stuck in the false doctrine that lies are revealed by looking at the witnesses. We are naturally pleased that trust in Norwegian courts is high. We know that we have to work for it every day and cannot take it for granted.”
Celebrity lawyers in big trouble
The Readmission Commission
But the criticism from Kjensli does not stop there. He is also not directly impressed by the Commission for the resumption of criminal cases.
– The legislature established the readmission commission as a separate institution, which was supposed to control the courts in specific cases. The commission has shown on a number of occasions that it does not function according to the legislator’s intentions.
– Do you have concrete examples?
– Unfortunately, there are many examples. To take one of the most famous – the Baneheia case. Viggo Kristiansen was found not guilty, and served 21 years in prison for a murder he had not committed. He was repeatedly refused permission to reopen his case. In the end, with a cry of distress – with three to two votes in the readmission commission – he won. Kristiansen did not get there because of the system, but because of free work from dedicated lawyers.
JUDICIAL MURDER: Viggo Kristiansen was innocently imprisoned for 21 years. Photo: Eivind Pedersen / Dagbladet Show more
– Other examples are the Birgitte Tengs case, and now the Orderud case where Per Orderud is still fighting to have his case reopened, says Kjensli.
Police provocation
The Supreme Court is now dealing with the plane drop case from 1994, where 12 men were sentenced to over 90 years in prison. A decision is expected within a couple of weeks.
– The Supreme Court must decide on an important matter of principle, about imposed silence in another case, and whether the information can be used in the airdrop case. But the Supreme Court’s decision no longer has any significance for reopening the case.
– Why?
– Because former police chief Øyvind Olsen, in an interview with Dagbladet on 6 November this year, came up with a new explanation. To Dagbladet, Olsen gave an explanation that contradicts what he and other police officers explained in the then Eidsivating Court of Appeal in 1994.
The plane drop: – A bad feeling
In the interview with Dagbladet, Olsen described the action as an emergency, and that the reason the Norwegian police cooperated with the police in the Netherlands in the airdrop case was to prevent someone from being killed.
– From my point of view, the “airdrop case” is not a provocation. It was and is an unusual case, where we – the police – had to think and work unconventionally. Provocation is leading someone into a criminal act that they would not otherwise have done. This case was about preventing someone from being killed. There is no provocation, because the “Nordlandsligaen” would smuggle amphetamines anyway, Olsen told Dagbladet.
– Olsen’s explanation that the airdrop case is contrary to what the prosecution claimed in court at the time, says Kjensli.
He also refers to the fact that the late state prosecutor Lars Frønsdal repeated several times in court that the Norwegian police were in no way involved in any police action in the Netherlands in connection with the airdrop case.
– The statement and confirmation from Øyvind Olsen is the first time we have publicly received confirmation that there was an illegal police provocation in the plane drop case. The airdrop case had nothing to do with emergency justice. It was nothing other than an illegal police provocation, says Kjensli.
SORRY: Attorney General Jørn Maurud apologizes most strongly to Viggo Kristiansen. The apology comes after it became clear that the attorney general will acquit Viggo Kristiansen of the murders in Baneheia in 2000. Video: NTB Show more
Punishable
– Olsen’s confirmation in Dagbladet means that the readmission commission – regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision – can hardly come to another conclusion that the airdrop case must be reopened, says Kjensli.
– Why?
– Because police officers in the plane drop case were guilty of criminal offences. We have now received confirmation that it was a police operation in which the Norwegian police played a significant role.
– Has anyone else confirmed that the Norwegian police took part in the police action in the Netherlands?
– Several other officials have confirmed it to me. One of the officials who was central to the Norwegian police action in the Netherlands has confirmed this. We have asked the readmission commission to question him and others, which the commission has not done.
DOESN’T WORK: Lawyer Morten Kjensli believes the Re-admission Commission does not work. Photo: Terje Bendiksby / NTB Show more
– Unfortunately, the Norwegian police officer who was present during the police operation died while waiting. He was both in Breda, where 10 kilos of amphetamines were bought, and in Groningen when the small plane with the drugs took off and headed for Southern Norway, says the lawyer.
– I am concerned about legal certainty in Norway, states lawyer Morten Kjensli.
Rejects provocation: – Emergency law
– Wasn’t asked
Dagbladet has submitted Kjensli’s criticism of the Commission for reopening criminal cases.
– We are aware of the criticism, and want to convey that we are working continuously to become even better. Furthermore, the readmission commission has never dealt with the case concerning Birgitte Tengs, it has only been dealt with in the legal system, says the commission’s leader Kamilla Silseth.
– As regards the so-called plane drop case, the commission has marked the interview with Øyvind Olsen in Dagbladet. The commission makes a total assessment of the case, and in that connection also welcomes the decision from the Supreme Court, which is expected to be available within a short time, says Silseth.
NOT ASKED: – In court I said nothing about emergency justice, because I was only asked about the questioning of the accused in the plane drop case, says Øyvind Olsen. Photo: Henning Lillegård / Dagbladet. view more
Former police chief Øyvind Olsen has the following comment to lawyer Morten Kjensli:
– It is correct that I testified in the Court of Appeal in 1994, but I was not asked about anything other than my role. I questioned several of those who had been arrested. None of the lawyers asked me about the background to the police action. I was not asked about emergency justice, and therefore said nothing about it, says Olsen.
– Incidentally, I remind you that the accused confessed to their roles in the airdrop case, concludes Olsen.
2023-11-29 11:14:02
#Judges #biased
