Thursday June 21 2012
12:05 VG: - The court is set.
12:05 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - The time has now come to the procedures, and when I give the word first to the prosecutor for the procedure.
12:07 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Thank you Honourable Court. A long and challenging criminal case is now almost over. Before I had the procedure takes a couple of practical things I have been aware of. I have been contacted by one of the interpreters. I have a tendency to talk faster and faster. I'm apparently not alone in the room. I hope that if it now turns out that I or Holden is in the process that it goes too fast then just give us some hints. Interpreters must beat the box if it gets too bad. [Judge Arntzen: - Engh, interpreters have received a copy of your summary?] Yes they have.
- As to the procedure. Although a lot of the facts in this case are not disputed the Holden and I summarize much of the evidence that has been. We will try to put the fact into its relevant legal framework. Friday 22 July 2011 has been and is still a national trauma. Thousands of people are indirectly or directly affected. Many have been traumatized for life. In the midst of this trauma, a perpetrator brought to justice in a way that must and will be implemented in line with our legal traditions.
- A case that challenged the legal system. Yesterday the matter was taken back to where it was supposed to be. It was a good and worthy conclusion to the evidence. This case is all about the 77 people who died that day and all the people who were affected.
12:10 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - In a desire to get a clear answer to the defendant's psyche, so have these serious realities been pushed back a little. It shall be ikek. It is important that these cruel, what we have seen never forgotten and never lost sight of. It is the prosecution's opinion is very important that the careful observance of the law and stipulated in the judgment. Some of bakrgunnen for it is a present judgment will form the basis for the recent extension of judgments against the defendants.
- And be it if he is sentenced to detention or within the regime forced mental health care. Judgment descriptions of the actions are important for the future. In this connection I would say that those who have been hardest hit by the 22 July has significantly contributed to the matter carried out in accordance with our legal traditions. They have arrived in the witness box shown a life force many of us never thought possible.
12:12 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - And a common mantra for many of them is that we do not let us stop. My little life to continue. The actions are so horrible is that they go far beyond our comprehension. I must constantly remind myself that this has been a reality. What makes it extra bad, is that actions are the result of a momentary impulse, but a meticulous planning through the year in which the desire to kill as many as possible have been the driving force in this planning. This has been a driving force in the defendant.
- The defendant has attacked a system that he despises. In this, they died more or less random victims. As survivors Thu Østbø said in court yesterday that was a good description that I would like to reproduce: "We feel affected as a nation because they represent us all dead." In Østbø explanation, we also find a link between the many harrowing individual destinies we have witnessed and the great "we-a."
12:14 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Because the 22 July hit not only a great many individuals, but also our open society that we all cherish. Østbø, again in his statement yesterday, we heard not only about his personal tragedy, but just as strong and clear we heard in spite of his strong will to continue to preserve the society we had before 22 July I am still, despite this, willing to accept the risk. A few weeks back we had a similar opinion from a peroson who worked in the government quarter. He was practically dead after bomb attack. How are you with the faith of rettradisjonen we have in Norway, he was asked. He replied, "I never left an inch."
- These testimonies make an impact. Now I'll go over to say something about how we have divided the procedure, so it will be easier to follow Norway has four conditions for someone to be punished. These terms will form the basis for the penalty. Fir the first there must be an act within the scope of a penal provision in criminal law.
12:16 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Second, there must be no self-defense or necessity. Thirdly, there must be subjective guilt of the perpetrator. And last but not least, the most difficult: the perpetrator must have been sane when he committed the offenses. I want my part of the procedure goes through part one and three. And go through the offenses that are subject to vurderiung. My colleague Holden will address the question whether the defendant is sane or not, whether the condition is present.
- When it comes to Conditions No. 2, necessity or self-defense. Neither I nor Holden will touch the topic further. This despite the fact that the defendant claimed that for his acquittal. Before I go into these terms do I need to touch a couple of conditions. It is given to the court, but I find reason to note that since there have been many who are concerned about this issue and many outside this room comes with what is happening and make them their thoughts and opinions about how a trial works . Firstly, what is the prosecutor's duties. Yes, we have tried to outline, the prosecutors imposed a duty of objectivity, during the investigation. But it is also a duty of objectivity, we are subject under the main proceedings in court.
12:18 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - And it follows from the Criminal Procedure Act Section 304 The objectivity of the duty depends on us to collect information for and against. This is a very important part of the legal system. Although this case is one of the worst we have seen, it has been the prosecution's view that this matter should be treated like all criminal cases. In line with our inherited legal traditions.
12:19 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - It has not always been easy. So I will briefly relate some remarks this criminal case can not give us answers. In serious criminal cases, particularly in a case like this we would wish we could give all the answers they want affected. But as in any other criminal case, I think we at some point can not find all the answers. Why did this happen? How could a man in such a short time do so incredibly much damage? How was this medbogereren among us to this killing machine we've seen today?
- Is he sick or is he sick? How many people he tried to kill that day? We have not been able to quantify accurately. Many of these questions we have received no answer, but many questions remain unanswered and may remain unanswered. It is a painful and difficult recognition in a case like this. So to any conditions the court should not take intensive actions or consider. The notes I because the media coverage in this case is historical. (...) Why do I need to make some clarifications. Initially, I mentioned that questions about the police response, it is not gang prepared for consideration in a criminal case against the perpetrator.
- But that does not mean we do not understand that these questions bothers those who are directly affected. But the answers are not up to us to give. So it has been strongly debated around the sane safety our rules. It has for me been a debate that has gone into each other. How sane proportionality rule should be should be is a question for legislators and not something we in the judiciary the right to take intensive actions to.
- We and the court must deal with the sane safety rules that exist today within the current legislation. Similarly, there has been debate about the Commission and the quality of expert statements have been relevant in this case. It has been debated how this control should be performed and whether the rules are good enough in this area. This is also a matter for the legislature and not the judicial law.
12:22 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - What is relevant for the court trying the case is how the Commission has exercised its kontrollvirkomhet within current regelerverk. And there it stops. Furthermore, there has been debate about sakbehandlingsregler and safety rules, within the custody and mental health care. Both we and the court must assume that the safety issues are addressed in both options. Are there weaknesses in these questions, it is a matter for the legislature, not the judicial law.
- As last. The Court is supreme in its presentation of evidence. The judgment shall be based on the regulations we have today. It is therefore important to emphasize that public opinion should not be considered. If it finds expression in the media or in other ways.
12:25 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - The common sense of justice can be an important factor in the interpretation of criminal law, but not in the questions who are in treatment on the bench in this case. It does not mean that the general sense of justice is important and we do not take seriously the discussion raised within the system we operate in today. It is important to make precise comments. The system is such that if the rules we have in this case in hindsight would prove to be out of step with the general sense of justice it is this fact the prosecution is obliged to take up with the legislative authority.
- This is because all the state organs is dependent on a basic acceptance and trust of the population. It can only be made after a judgment is final and things have calmed down. (...) So I'll say a little about why we believe this is a proper understanding of the facts. The fact of the matter is that we know, largely unchallenged. It is an unusual situation in a criminal case in Norway. We agree on the fact, outside of Knights Templar existence and timing of planning terrorist acts.
12:26 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - I'll start by saying something about the facts related to planning. It is undisputed that the defendant in 2006 moved to his mother and lived there until 2011. He claims that his ideas and thoughts about using violence to achieve their goals began in 2002. He states that these thoughts came in his contact with the founders of KT. He says that everything that happened in his life after 2002 was more or less bearing on his life up to the terrorist attacks.
- He has from his arrest and until now the court held that in 2002 he came in contact with a Serbian war hero who spent time in Liberia. He is sent by him to London where he meets three other people from other countries. Knights Templar are formed and it becomes a ordineringsmøte. He will write a Compendium which Knights Templars thoughts and ideas should be enshrined. At the meeting they agreed on a Crusader's identity. He makes notes as the basis for part three in the compendium as he writes.
- Later, according to his own, in 2004, he meets under the auspices of this network in the Baltic region and he has always maintained that there are two other cells in Norway. It is this network he believes to have in the back for actions on 22 July. We do not share defendant's view that there should exist a logical line from the meeting with the Serb in Liberia until 22 July. Unfortunately, for him, do not fit the picture he drew of himself in the day, with the terrain that constitutes the reality of his story.
12:30 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - When the indictment was the arrest and interrogation ... In many interviews later, he describes his role in an existing network, and when this information was taken with the utmost seriousness. It was only when we became better acquainted with this man and he was placed in this network, that all logic disappeared completely. Instead of creating fear, signed only a tragic picture of a young man in his quest to become something great, has become part of a non-existing network that will give him the impetus to this unattainable goal.
- He has indisputably been on these trips, but trips have had a completely different content than what he describes today. The reality has been to cover stories. What is it that does not fit in the defendant's description into this terrorist network. Let's see who this Serbian war hero made contact with in 2002. The defendant, then 23 years old, living in the collective of good friends working in telemarketing and is an active member of the Progress Party and the FPU.
- He has not completed high school and not completed military service. He lives a normal social life with friends and family. This is a man who, together with some of the "Europe's most brilliant military strategists", was selected to create a new revolutionary terror network. The other members of the network will choose him to write the lecture notes, because "he had the necessary credibility to make this work" to use his own words. This follows the "armchair general principle." Even more incomprehensible is the story as we have described why the Knights Templar will be created in 2002.
- Yes, it was created according to prosecute on the basis of NATO's bombing of Kosovo in 1999. It was the straw that got it all to overflow, according to defendants. Serb will in spite of this have opted out of a young man in a NATO country, Norway, and additionally involved in politics. One man even after he should have been involved in establishing this network will continue in politics, and continue to send their support to the U.S. on the web.
12:34 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - When the defendant during interrogation by the police in 2011 did not even remember which views the Progress Party had on the Kosovo conflict, this story just absurd. I will attach some comments to Liberia and Baltic tours. We have heard of Liberia-trip, in our opinion, to buy diamonds. We have gone through the purchase of diamond equipment and phone calls to dealers before and after the trip to Liberia. We have heard his best friend, describing that he was involved in investing money in an attempt diamond purchase. We had Alpha Kallon describing it was to buy diamonds and was with him in the biggest part of your stay.
- None of these facts are accused description to yield a single inch. Even in the face of this reality, he maintains that the diamond story was only a cover for the real purpose of this trip. Buying a diamond effects and additional diamond dial, according to himself, "to strengthen the cover." But no one has questioned it. So the trips to the Baltics. The meeting is detailed described in the compendium as "training courses". The defendant will then have met people from different countries and have taught them to know, according to the compendium.
- We meet with reality where the flight times and bank visits be holding him, which, in itself, makes it impossible for the content of the trip, which he describes. Still clutching his still compendia descriptions. With that we can ignore the existence of KTS, as defendants describe it. When this falls, it changes the time when he began to think about the use of violence.
- So when did the planning of 22 July? As required by the parties, we do not trust that there was a thread from 2002 and up to 22 July. In our opinion, he has lived a normal life until 2005 and 2006. When he moves home to his mother is not with the intention of planning a terrorist act, but in our view, something he plans at a later date. What supports such an understanding of the facts?
- In questioning the Utøya, right after he was arrested, he stated several times that had dreaded this day for two years. The year 2009 appears then that the relevant year. The declaration from Husby / Sørheim has accused statements about this. He says: "From 2007, I wrote part 1 and part 2 The military section was written last. (...) The plan of necessary executions emerged as I wrote in 2009. "
12:38 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - This is true because with the explanation he has given in interviews with the police. So we have had his friends here who have given explanations about what they thought was a history book in 2008. They hear only a history of the Islamization of Europe. (...) So we have gone through some video games not his. We assume that he has played significantly more than what he has stated. And this with the fact that he has given himself a martyr estate gift in the form of a year of playing.
- Evidence has shown that he is the 16th May 2008 had a post on WoW that he has played non-stop for two years and is about to move to another game. The first purchases related to terrorist act in September 2009 and it is the purchase of uniforms as we have seen pictures of. Indications are that the planning of a violent reaction starts the first half of 2009. He has during these two years had a strong desire and a will to harm and kill lots of people.
- He has said himself considered several alternative violent raids that involve mass murder. We have also heard that he had a mind to go to scoop-conference, and build more bombs, but it was too difficult. So it ends up with a bomb in the government quarter. He has always been concerned about how he could kill the most people. He ends up placing a bomb in the government quarter and according to himself was Utøya selected as target in April / May of that year.
- When I go to touch the fact about the actions 22.7. When it comes to killing, and the wounded from the government quarter and Utøya. It may be that some had expected me to go into detail about each murder. I will not do. I apologize that it is not because of lack of respect for those who have been killed.
12:42 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - But every murder is carefully described in the indictment and had evidence about this in court. Last but least, there has not been disputed that description made by the individual murder. For this reason I have chosen when it comes to its ministries and Utøya come up with some general descriptions of murder or attempted acts that were committed. I start with its ministries.
- As a result of the explosion, died at 8 people in the government quarter, some random passersby and others employed in the government quarter, from 20-60 years. As a result, 9 persons were victims of attempted murder and serious injury. The Court has even seen how these injuries have marked people for life. As a result of the charges stayed there up to 250 people in high-rise building and other government buildings. In addition, 75 people, approximately, at street level.
- As stated in the indictment that the court has been given. Then a large number of these people real victims of attempted murder by bombing of the government quarter. We can not attach further detail how many people were exposed to danger when the bomb went off. Therefore, the indictment this general form. We had a witness description from the court from people who are not injured but was located near the bomb when it went off.
- We were recently in memory is how the vagaries of certain life and death that day. We heard Østbø explanation of his wife's choice of a subway station was fatal to her person. So I go to Utøya. After the bomb had exploded continued defendant's targeted plan to travel to Utøya. Prosecutors have no faith in the defendant's explanation that if it had died more people in the government quarter, he had not gone. The actions of Utøya was carefully planned and beyond what we thought was possible by the insidious evil.
- The desire to kill as many as possible, either by shooting or drowning, he went to the island disguised as a policeman under the pretext to help or inform about what had happened in Oslo. He chooses an island where those who are there do not have many opportunities to get there, or seek refuge in another way. He had, according to himself, thinking that the water would act as a weapons of mass destruction, where those who escaped drowning in the cold water. Since the murders and murder trials are undisputed, I do not go into each murder, but will attach some general descriptions of the 80 minutes the defendant walked around the island.
- I believe it is important that we take into us that the evidence in court only clan fades into a picture of the reality that these people experienced. We can only imagine the fear and powerlessness that have existed there, and I find it difficult to describe the 80 minutes he moved out there on the island. With only one goal in mind - to kill as many people as possible.
- In 80 minutes we know he killed 69 people and tried to kill a large number of others. We know that he hit 33 people in addition to the 69 who died. His desire to kill was strong and most people were hit by several shots. Many were shot in the head. As he walked around the island, he confused those who were there by pretending to be police, and he enticed people like this out of their hiding places.
12:48 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - At six o'clock he calls the police, according to himself, to surrender, because the operation is complete. The description is in stark violation of the explanation of the Manifesto, which described that this was a good way. By calling in, you can make yourself more time. The fact is that the defendant continues to kill for these phone calls. The most incomprehensible is the defendant's descriptions. He is totally unaffected by what he describes what he did there. He describes how these young men begged for their lives. He assured that all were dead by firing a shot in the head, to ensure that the goal was reached.
- No trace of remorse and feelings prescribe it here in court how he charges about while those who are not fired up and waiting for him to kill them. When the defendant to explain this, it's almost that we can not believe that this is reality. They died on Utøya are mainly young people on their way out of life. 56 of those killed were 20 years or younger.
12:50 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Seven of those killed were over 25 years. I thought that when the survivors were here and testified that describes not only his own experience, but for me they gave me a good picture of how the people were who did not come home from Utøya this day. And we have by the survivor testimony heard about fear, unity and heroism. We have heard of serious physical and psychological damage that many of those have to deal with the rest of your life. We have descriptions of how friends were killed right in front of them and some have had to sleep with their dead friends over before the police came to the rescue.
12:51 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - These sensations, these people live with the rest of his life, as a result of the defendant's actions. So any comments on the number of murder and attempted murder. There are 69 executing premeditated murder and a series of premeditated attempted murder. As stated by the defendant, he tried to kill many of those who were on the island. Beyond the 33 people we have named in the indictment, it has been impossible for us to specify the number of those he tried to kill. We have had witnesses who were hiding on the island, swam from the island or were in the boat "Reiulf" and we have had witnesses who rescued children in their own boats. Many of these were exposed to a real murder trial.
- I see fit to mention two of the murders of Utøya compared to rettshenvendelsen of premeditated murder. This applies to the murder of Earl Ødergaard who drowned and Andrew Dalby Grønnesby who fell off a cliff. They both died in flight from the defendant, but none of them were in direct contact with the defendants.
- It was on the basis of his intent or desire to kill as many as possible on the island either by drowning or by fire, and our view is that it appears to the defendant as accidental that the people he drove around to die in the way that they did . That is why he must be convicted for premeditated murder of the well. I refer to Andenæs' 5. issue involving similar issues.
12:54 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - I will briefly say something about the wild cut of guilt. With regard to the above penalties § 147 a: It takes willful murder and terrorist intent. To start with murder: it is taken out points to, premeditated murder. Murder trials must be what we call planned, done intentionally or deliberately. There is no doubt here that samlitge of murder trials have been deliberate. So terrorism requires determination that there be terrorist intent. It appears from the documents. [Quoting from the statutory text.] He must, by their actions have done some thinking that this would happen.
- And in this case I think we can pull it longer. He wanted you it would happen, but the law as it exists today, does not require such an intent murder. When it comes to the actions of the government building, it is clear that both resolutions are met and the Utøya the intent "wanted to create a serious fear in the population" that is filled.
12:56 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Finally, I attach some comments to the choice of law provisions. Terror clause has never been applied in a criminal case in Norway. We have no guidance from the courts for the use of the provision. And we have then - when we worked on the indictment - attempted to use the source of law principles that we have for understanding of this legislation.
- The prosecuting authorities have been aware that there are two acts of terrorism, one in the government quarter and one on Utøya, and it is not natural as seeing this as a criminal offense, but two separate acts of terrorism. A number of premeditated murder and premeditated attempted murder under particularly aggravating circumstances. During preparation of the defendants has been questioned about the competitors. [Refers to the penal code] to liability in addition to terrorism provisions. Our view remains that § 147 a fully covers [refers]. Some grounds for competitors we do not mean it is.
The court is now taking a break to clock 13.15. After the break, the prosecutor Svein Holden explain the prosecution's view on the issue of sanity, and akoratets assertion.
1:00 p.m. prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: - When it comes to Penal Code § 49 is an attempt included in the latter part of the indictment or the last part. The reference to § 49 is back in murder trials, respectively ministries and Utøya and not to the terrorist attacks as such. If the court wants it, we add a case to item 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the descriptions. This is a scheme we have set up in relation to the claim, if the court wants such a change. That's what I should say now. Is it desirable to have a break before Holden takes his part? [Judge Arntzen believes it is appropriate]
1:10 p.m. VG: - The pause lasts until 13:15.
1:18 p.m. VG: - Negotiations continue.
Holden says that the time has come for the prosecution account of Breivik should be regarded as sane or not.
1:22 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Honourable Court, the time has come to the prosecuting authority's review of the issue of Anders Brevik Behring should be criminally sane. In the following I will first devote some attention law. I will say something briefly about the Penal Code section 44, I'll use some more time to examine the evidence requirements. Then I have an extensive batch associated with the fact, and I will further explain the form of reaction we believe is right. Finally I will comment on the scenario that the court is of a different opinion than the prosecuting authorities.
- And I will say something about the scenarios we may face, before the conclusion I will impose a claim. When it comes time, it is difficult to estimate, but a half to two hours will take my post. And then I think it is an advantage if everyone has the legal statement clear, for now we take on law and more specifically the Criminal Code § 44
1:24 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - The excerpt is the bottom right. Unfortunately, no pagination always flurries to spot. Penal Code § 44 "The action at the time was psychotic or unconscious shall not be punishable." Legislators have up what is in the legal formulations. It is also in this case, p (...) in the legal extract is taken from an excerpt from Odelstigsproposjonen that resulted in this provision. "The question of what conditions should be considered as a psychosis in the criminal law sense, be the deciding factor on how mental health care at any given time defines the term psychosis (...) the relationship to reality is essentially disturbed. (...) The psychotic often loses control of thoughts, feelings and actions. The border between psychosis and other mental disorders is not clear. "The legal concept must therefore be determined on the basis of the medical basis.
- The wording in this preliminary work also suggests full-term identity but for the sake of completeness, it should be noted that it appears that there may be minor differences between the legal and medical term psychosis. This potential difference, however, I do not pursue further, because in our case it is unnecessary.
1:26 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - We believe it is unthinkable that Anders Breivik Behring may be able to fill the blue book conditions for a F20 diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia or paranoid psychosis, but fall outside the concept of psychosis application in Penal Code § 44 Therefore content myself with pointing out this and move me over the requirement of proof of mental incapacity. At the beginning of this theme, it has been enlightening to have in mind that the function of each proof is to spread the risk of errors in different directions.
- In this regard, formulated like the requirement for evidence that all reasonable doubt the defendant to come to good. The intended function of such a strict standard of proof is to serve the moral standpoint as is expressed (...) "It is better that ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted." In addition, proof of degree rules be based on considerations to efficiency. It is impractical to operate with a standard of proof which is so strictly that it will never be able to leave the meeting. The typical bevissitausjonen will thus be of importance when to establish a standard of proof.
1:28 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden - I said all reasonable doubt the defendant to come to good. It also applies to the real issue and the question of sanity, or will be formulated in another way? In search of an answer for this question it is necessary to look at the legal sources. I'll look at some judge, pointing out preliminary work and see what legal writers have written before. The basic judgment to understand the content of the description of accountability set out in 1970.
- From the subject matter, it is sufficient to make the court aware that there was talk of a murder case and a 20-year-old man who was sentenced to 6 years in prison. What can be generalized to the general view about the standard of proof is taken from page 6 in my pagination. When I really take my time to read this entire page: [Holden refers the first line]
- From the court records I repeat: "The judge reviewed the case and explained what would be the basis for the jury's answers. Enlarge Item: If the jury finds that it is doubtful, it must answer no to the question of guilt. But it may not be the same requirements for evidence strength when it comes to the question of whether the defendant has taken action. It can not be claimed more than preponderance of probability that the defendant is insane. "
- The magistrate found it is concerned due to summarize what was recorded when he pointed out that the doctor in the trial said that it tends toward the theoretical. I say that a conclusion about the situation based on the expert opinion that the defendant is insane. If the committee considers this doubtful, observanden is not insane.
- It is a morbid condition to be proved. But if the experts have doubts about observandens state of mind must in practice be expressed in the rettspykiatriske statement. Although the conclusion shows that the experts have not understood the defendant as insane defendant must nevertheless acquitted of punishment for other reasons that you find questionable whether the defendant was sane when the offense was committed.
- "It is properly expressed." Then the Supreme Court of the more general considerations, and here is almost as important. "It is not given and can hardly be given statutory rules regarding the requirements of proof should be when in a criminal case asks whether the defendant's sanity ear on the work of the time. (...) I agree with the judge that it is not the same demands for evidence strength for the defendant committed the acts. "
- But I'm not necessarily agree with the judge that a preponderance of probability is sufficient. If the experts disagree, it should not be considered sane indictment, if the Court of Appeal ... (...)
- A precise form of proof of claim can not be derived as stated by law or in practice. In this assessment, the emphasis is on what they rettspyskiatriske experts have said and also the premises for the presentation and the oral explanation at trial. [Holden refers bit] In this case, the judge had to say no if the defendant was insane at work currently. [Holden continues to refer] then rejected the appeal.
1:35 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - The key, just to be sure it is evident: Supreme Court says it can not be the same demands for evidence strength that the defendant has taken action, but it must be higher than a preponderance. I will soon get a closer look at what is just that. The date is 10 January 2003. The specific facts involved an arson. I will read the first sentences of paragraphs (...):
- Here it says: I have not seen the Court of Appeal has built on a false (...) The Court has based its judgment of 1979. This is sufficient to consider evidence rules correctly. I would also say that the Supreme Court in 2003 followed the ruling of 1979. Furthermore, I want to take a ruling from -98.
1:38 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Specifically, there was talk about the standard of proof for conviction for drug crimes, but it is a statement in the fourth last paragraph. It says the following: The principle that reasonable doubt should be indicted for good is to ensure that no one is wrongly convicted. The consensus of staff legal theory that not all evidence requirements can be set in all straffeberegnelser. What is reasonable doubt must depend on the nature of the case. "In my perception it is important to emphasize that here spoken of shades to ensure that no one is uskydlig convicted, the principle that no one should be wrongly convicted omheves reasonable doubt."
- It was the decisions of the Supreme Court that I wanted to show the court. I have also included a recent tingrettsdom. I am fully aware that the legal source value of such a decision is modest, but I have taken it to illustrate how the proof of the claim is interpreted to a case that has parallels to our sakforhold. The decision is from Aust-Agder County Court, and judgment is from 16 May 2012. It is legally binding for individuals I will focus on. As the court can see, there are two names on the first page. I will focus on number two, which I will designate as B.
- Here court reiterated in a statement: The experts have maintained their conclusions, hereby declare that the defendant was not psychotic, but that they are in any doubt about it, and have suggested a doubt extent of 10-20 percent. Commission members agree with the experts. The situation here was that the experts believed that there was a 80-90 percent probability that B was sane. The question is what did the court? The majority said in the penultimate paragraph that there is a big doubt that he can not be sentenced to punishment. He was then transferred to compulsory psychiatric care.
1:42 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - A lay judge did not agree with the arguments and argued that it was not psychotic in deed the moment and had to be condemned to punishment. I will continue to point to some short statements in the legislative history. On page 43, I have included criminal utilregnlighetsregler and sanctions. On page 44 we see that there is a paragraph with evidence issues. [Holden refers to this section]
- Also refer to some literature, and this judgment we have gjennomfått from `79 I was on the Proposition 93/94. I should point out a few more comments from this document. "If there is reasonable doubt about offender accountability (...) There is enough in practice somewhat lower standard of proof strength (...) The Ministry bases its argument that it can not be imputed to the same requirements as that tilalte have committed the act He is accused of. "The observant listener may register that it is the Supreme Court's statements that are repeated.
- It is largely the situation in the legal literature. There are subtle differences that I think the court wants to know, so I take the minutes it takes to read these. When it comes to literature, the commentary to the Penal Code.
- "Will the matter to court and there is doubt whether the defendant was sane the accused shall be acquitted. Although doubts should be indicted for good does not make the same demands to strengthen the evidence in this area when the defendant did the acts. "
- And argue that it sometimes can be in the defendant's interest to be found sane, rather than to be acquitted because of the irresponsible. Case law shows that there is no basis in particular the reduction of proof requirement. In a judgment from 98 states that the ratio and ensures the original proof of claim, it is important to emphasize that here spoken of nøyanser.
- As in recent years appears to further literature. 5. edition of the General Criminal law is included from page 53 Top of page 54, you see right there in the big and it's all followed the ruling of -79. Asbjorn Strandbakken has written a book called presumption of innocence.
- Here is a more thorough explanation as I allow myself to read up. And then I start at the bottom of the first page. "In practice, however, to give a more lenient standard of proof on the perpetrator was mentally ill than that on the basis ..."
- In Denmark it is unclear what standard of proof that responsibility. (...) Swedish law does not require the perpetrator to be sane. (...) (...) It is clear that it operates with a lower standard of proof. If the accused in English law (...) Then repeat much of the decision. One can therefore operate with a lower requirement than the reasonable doubt, but a higher requirement than probability.
- Then brought the general proof of the claim. Because the court must acquit if they believe that there is any reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt to get the benefit of the accused if he has committed the objective action and whether he was sane.
1:50 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - It may seem inappropriate to ascribe the same concept different meanings in different contexts ogg attempt to shape a different standard of proof is that we have greater differences. "Even if you do not have to anvede a requirement of reasonable doubt there is hardly much scope to deviate from the criminal standard of proof" [Holden refers bit]
1:50 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - In 98 the decision is based on the assumption that there can be equally high standards. However, it is stated that what is reasonable doubt to some extent depend on the nature of the case, but it speaks of nøyanser. In order to prevent innocent people are convicted, you have proof of the claim is enforced strictly. It applies to both the objective and the action is the detainee's state of mind.
- But in relation to the accused's state of mind is greater uncertainty foot room for doubt classified as affordable. The Court's briefing, I have also included sections of the Norwegian General Criminal Law. I do not go further into it. He relies on the same. To complete the legal statement, see the court that it contained a number of articles in the following, and the reasons for this is to provide the right information up to the 79-decision. And we have this with historical interest. This is the argument that proof of claim has a lower probability.
- I do not go through this now. In short excerpt contained a law from 1956. Johs Andenæs reviews "Married case in Hamar," and where there should be a requirement likely to determine sanity. He maintained that from 1971 and the second edition of his textbook of 1979. This of course was something of bakrgunnen that the prosecution argued to the Supreme Court that it was a requirement of probability.
- For the record, added that Andenæs not maintain this position after the decision in the Supreme Court. [Arntzen: - What was Andenæs' justification for the position?] There is a fairly intricate and detailed explanation, which perhaps I may ask the Court to take on their own, so we do not use too much time on this issue now. I'll move on to two particular issues. Is there a basis for special regulation of proof required in stations where the matter (...) sanctions.
- And second, the defendant is suitable would be emphasized? I take first for me the situation where the alternative to imprisonment is a sanction. What? The reason is that the Supreme Court did not act on this. It was about punishment and acquittal.
1:55 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - In such a situation, a false statement of accountability lead to a staff person for substantive criminal law is not liable. Thus, one can say that it is not surprising that the Supreme Court finds a proof that non-psychotic perpetrators go free rather than the psychotic criminal is sentenced. And in our case it is certainly clear that no matter Breivik will get an indefinite reaction. The options are compulsory mental health care or custody.
- Then it may be noted that the standard of proof rules that I have examined does not solve our issues. The question is whether the proof of the claim here should be weighted so that it favoriserrer errors in one particular direction. Is it worse that psychotic sentenced to custody than non-psychotic imposed forced mental health care? In our opinion it is worse that a psychotic sentenced to custody than a non-psychotic sentenced to psychiatric care.
1:56 p.m.Prosecutors Svein Holden: - I will draw five four factors pulls in that direction. Firstly, we have fairly obvious, just that the punishment character should be a deliberate evil with an associated stigma. Second, it suggests treating the situation in the two different regimes are more severe if a psychotic sentenced custody than a non-psychotic imposed compulsory mental health care.
- In this regard, the more I know that both forms of displacement, in principle, can be corrected which may weaken some of the weight of this argument. Thirdly, a false conviction for possession of a psychotic person could result in a prolonged deprivation of liberty than the transfer to compulsory mental health care. Gurnnen for this is that the detention start out with a penalty section, while the compulsory mental health care all the time takes the form of a hedging perspective.
1:58 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Fourth, I will point out an argument of a more just technical in nature. It belongs to the conviction to determine whether there is a psychosis. And it must lagrettsaker, before a decision is taken other conditions for sanctions. At the time of the decision of guilt or innocence will be ævre unclear if the terms to impose a sanction are fulfilled. Against this background it is hardly desirable to operate with different standards of proof for tilregnlighetsspørsmålet (...)
- Finally, I will add that the difference between the situation in 1979 and our cause is not as big as I expressed earlier. As I said in place, it was a murder case, and that would be imposed if the perpetrator fuse had been convicted sane. With this assumption was sane safety issue largely as now.
- But in any case it is the prosecution's view that there is no reason to operate with different standards of proof depending on options of punishment is an acquittal or sanctions. Anders Breivik Behring wish to be sentenced to custody. The court may consider it? I have previously cited the traditional standard of proof formulation that doubt should be indicted as a whole.
- It has been argued from various quarters that it can speak to emphasize the defendant's attitude toward tilregnlighetsspørsmål. This is a dead end. Evidence Requirements formulation is based on an underlying assumption that punishment is an evil and not be imposed where there is doubt about the criminal needs are met. (...)
2:01 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - In this connection it may be added that the sane rights issues is not a unique position in this respect. But few would have thought to emphasize the defendant's attitude toward the question of guilt if he is right perpetrator, for example.
2:02 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - And perhaps most importantly, given that the defendant is insane, it's tempting to think that whatever he is not competent to dispose of their own right style. And in conclusion what if Breivik changed their mind? Lippestad have the court told us about a change of pace from Breivik. First it was okay to be sentenced to unaccountable.
2:03 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Then the defender a clear mandate to process the in sanity. What if he again change your mind? What impact will it have the appeal court, if his own request shall be attached? The time has come to a conclusion when it comes to law: In light of the sources of law (...): Evidence requirement for accountability is clearly closer to the ordinary criminal standard of proof, that any doubt should be indicted for good, than the civil law requirements for likelihood.
- Clearly closer to the criminal standard of proof. We do not want to help push the use of concepts in mathematics and will not attempt to define the result as a percentage. So far, I have reproduced some law. Now it's time to move on to the question of Breivik should be imposed compulsory mental health care or not.
2:04 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - l light of what has gone through the problem can be formulated as a question. Can bevisførselsen high degree of possibility that Breivik was psychotic on 22 July last year. Can we with a high degree of certainty exclude it? If we are able to do so he shall be sentenced custody.
- If we do not with a high degree of certainty to exclude psychosis, it follows from the law that he can not be sentenced custody. Then he must be sentenced to forced mental health care. First I look at the arguments in favor of accountability, and Husby visit / Sørheim statement and decide whether it is appropriate to create the required degree of doubt.
- And we have taken a rather important choice when it comes to presentation. I will not go into detail on all the evidence. After some trial and forth, we have registered for a detailed presentation of this may lead to the argument is long and difficult to follow through on the court. We come to a large extent to take some brief disclosure of the evidence.
- But it's certainly a thought behind this. As regards the argument for sanity, we know that there are two criteria that are important to keep in mind. Assessments that are closely time-22 July and carried out by competent personnel are important parameters to assess the weight of argument in the future. We know that prison health services score high in both areas.
2:07 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - They come in early contact with Breivik and have experience of observing psychosis. From page 143 of the Declaration Aspaas and Tørrissen, it is explained in further detail contact between prison health and Breivik. Here we see that the employees have had contact with Breivik 13 times before Husby / Sørheim conduct their first joint call in August. In none of these meetings are reported suspected psychosis.
2:09 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - When we see this in the light of Husby characteristics that Breivik was like a crane, so we perceive prison health services lack of reporting psychotic symptoms as a very strong sign of sanity. So we know that Dr. Arnhild IPS had conversations with him throughout the year. And Randi Rosenqvist has two calls. And psykologspeialist Eirik Johannessen initiate contact with Breivik, 23 December.
- Everything then only after Breivik was familiar with the contents of the first statement. Here, we face three professionals. They may have, to varying degrees had intended to reveal any psychotic symptoms, but all have been in court and given their opinion of it. The common denominator is no direct evidence of psychosis.
- As implemented a forced observation from 29 of February to 21 March 2012. This is performed by a highly competent personnel who are exclusively focused on uncovering evnetuelle psychotic symptoms in Breivik. As we have heard of Aspaas and Tørrissen, the duration of obeservasjonen is so long that they would expect to see psychotic symptoms if Breivik was psychotic.
2:11 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - In continuation of this, it is natural to emphasize Aspaas and Tørrissen, two unquestionably competent professionals who have had many in-depth conversations with Breivik. In summary, the I will not hide the fact that it is possible to point out several weaknesses of the evidence is not psychosis, but nevertheless, we see them in context, I would say that they paint a fairly robust picture of Breivik as a sane offender .
2:12 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - The topic of my future will be to consider whether the arguments that are performed for Breivik was psychotic that is likely to shake this impression. That the course initially involve a review of assessing the declaration and testimony of Husby and Sørheim. This one can approach in different ways, but I think Sørheim gave a tempting approach that every forensic psychiatric work takes place on three levels.
- You observe and karaktereriserer symptoms. So make Mon diagnosiske assessment based on ICD-10. And finally the forensic psychiatric assessment. And if we start with the observation and characterization of symptoms. I thought at first to say a few brief words about the information obtained. Husby / Sørheim has first conversation with Breivik 10 august. They come early with a clearly defined mandate.
2:14 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - They have a very good cooperation with Breivik and I think it is very important to keep in mind the Husby named as a pristine crime scene. They met Breivik as a pristine crime scene. And for the record, there is obviously no reason to doubt the collected material. Breivik 200 lies I do not think anything. Furthermore, obtained Husby / Sørheim info from mother 1 august. It is considered important for the diagnosis that was later set.
2:15 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - When it comes to the description of symptoms, it is directed considerable criticism at the written statement. The essence of the criticism that I have seen it go at that statement has not been enough to discuss. I fully agree in. I will highlight some examples. The use of "I" and "we" that characterized the identity of a fuzzy experience. I miss a trade-off of the Breivik have mentioned that this is a clear reference to me or me and my like-minded users.
- He knows what others think should be considered not up to his own information about the AAT it is his sales background has made him able to read other people but not their thoughts. So there has been much focus on the so-called new words or neologisms. Given Sørheim reference to the definition, I agree that most words referred to in the declaration can be viewed as neologisms, but other witnesses have told us that it is not this kind of problem you associate with schizophrenia. Again, it would have been natural to a deepening of the experts on what the definition assumed.
2:16 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Another factor that can best be characterized on confusing is the use of advocating bizarre. We learned during the case that the use of this word has crept into a problem with the use of a U.S. test manual and do not have anything with the diagnosis in ICD-10 to do. What I have been most concerned, are all factors that have given the label paranoid delusions.
2:17 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - An example that can show it is taken from page 110 where Breivik states that the story of the invasion of Serbia is distorted by the media. I'd like to see a somewhat fuller explanation of why it's a paranoid delusion. These were some thoughts from the standpoint been on the first level in Husby and Sørheim work.
- I go over to the diagnoistiske assessments. This is the main question in the case. Meets Breivik conditions for paranoid schizophrenia, he will not be punished legally sane. On the way over to our thoughts about Husby / Sørheim diagnosistiske assessment, I will attach some comments to Breivik grunnlegegende delusion. They pick up the following description: "He thinks he will save us all from destruction in a battle between good and evil. In this fight, he has a responsibility and a call to decide who should live or die. "
- The responsibility is rooted in a superior position in a non-existent organization. The experts further stated that his symptom profile among other things, was characterized by affektavflatning and that he had no cognitive impairment. He had an unusual profile. In our view, there are clear advantages and disadvantages of providing such a concentrated view of Breivik.
- If we take the benefits first. By doing so in a manner highlighting the experts clearly that it is the grandiose that is the core of Breivik's delusion. This diagnosis does not depend on his political worldviews. There is also the person who is given a Breivik F20 diagnosis not his right-wing political opinion. Second, it clarifies the experts that the absence of cognitive impairment is not a prerequisite to fulfill the criteria of diagnosis.
- In other words, a strong argument against the conclusion that Breivik perform a cognitively demanding action, made the bomb and spent lots of time and performed many demanding's performance. One quarter does not have such a cognitive impairment. Thus, two advantages, however, and now I think I should Foretelling that I go in on something we believe is extremely important, because this also has a significant weakness. Does not this clarification that all the mass murderers and terrorists are psychotic and unpredictable? [Refers to the Times yesterday.] This is a view I've heard in many varieties for the report of Husby / Sørheim.
2:22 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Will not fall any terrorist into this picture they draw? For that, I will remind you what Sørheim answered questions from lawyers Elgesem when time had passed half past four in the afternoon. I have allowed myself to trust the media and made a print, "Now we have a diagnostic evaluation of the balance is based on many factors. It is not a delusion here. It is 150 pages with details about the performances. "
2:23 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - "There is an overall assessment of all the ideas he has presented the psychotic nature. That a core idea is because we can not repeat everything every time. It is this that he may be the founder of Wikipedia and the father of many children through a tube system. Therefore, we have concentrated on his core idea the other building around. "
- For there is another way of saying that the diagnosis is the result of a much wider discretion than the wording of this core formulation invites us to believe. They have taken opplysnigner about his past, from friends and family, and opplysnigner from Breivik although many areas of life. Therefore it is incorrect to attribute the experts believe that all mass murderers and terrorists necessarily have to be psychotic. This is not about you any terrorist, but if the person Behring Anders Breivik and the overall assessment and diagnosis not given by Husby / Sørheim.
- When it comes to the diagnosis, and here I allow myself to go straight to the core. If answered in the affirmative that the criteria in subparagraph D is fulfilled, it is sufficient to put the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia at Breivik. Then it is strictly unnecessary to go into the other criteria.
- And if there are strong reasons for saying that the foundation of diagnosis is very weak, it seems, in my view, pointless to argue that the diagnosis has been met because of circumstances after the experts' assessments outside the nucleus. If the basic performance do not meet criteria for paranoid schizophrenia, it seems to me pointless to go to consider what the experts think is outside the core still fall under the diagnosis.
- I will not link to me the other criteria Husby / Sørheim states are met. In general, however, I will add, that associated with the given reading and neologisms, I perceive more symptoms under the terms as rather weakly founded. Then we go to the Criterion D - there is a delusion of grandiose character?
2:26 p.m.Prosecutors Svein Holden: - Husby and Sørheim says yes, and giving several examples. Aspaas / Tørrissen said No, this is not a case of a delusion. [Arntzen: - You say, grandiose delusions, they have cited persistent bizarre delusions.]
2:28 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - That was the reason why the court corrected this and used ICD 10-criteria and not DSM criterion of bizarre that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible according to ICD 10. The use of the bizarre was somewhat unclear, but was prepared. [Judge Arntzen: - Do you use when grandiose notions as complete impossible delusions. Is it synonymous for the account you are entering?] Not now but soon.
- We begin first with deciding whether it is a P suspension and then I ask myself the question of the possible delusion is culturally inappropriate (...) I find it difficult to make strong objections to the clinical judgment made by Husby / Sørheim. Breivik has undoubtedly emerged as grandiose in his meeting with the experts. The statement on the inside and that he saw this as an attempt to impress the experts.
- Sure enough, several other professionals had contact with Breivik the same time period without reaching the same conclusion. When it comes to prison personnel in Ila, so they may have had a primary role in assessing the risk of suicide and not make such an observation Husby / Sørheim have done. Are we facing a function of case that you see as a warning sign of a delusional disorder.
- Husby said that the function kill from 2006 onwards are not consistent with a delusional disorder. He said that implicit in the ascertainment of such a kink is the diagnosis that should be expressed. Here we have a rather different assessment of the situation from Breivik Aspaas and Tørissen. They say no, what we see here is not a clearly defined break that often registers as a warning to schizophrenia.
- He retires to play and he continued through his contact with others in the game that he does not have this function decline that Husby / Sørheim is concerned. From our perspective, we point out that based on this one mother's description, we think it is difficult to see that we are only facing a function of change that are game related. Mother and friends describe a kvalitetativ change in behavior from (...)
- An additional factor is that the experts Aspaas / Tørrissen it difficult to refer to events back in time to witness that we stand by persistent personality trait and not a change that we see in 2006.
2:33 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - In continuation of this must also be emphasized that the forensic commission supports the first expert assessment of these symptoms. And they are also skeptical about the basic terms of personality disorder are met. And from this side, we perceive the Commission as a source of considerable weight. The organization possesses significant expertise and experience to evaluate judicial observations.
- So I think it's hard to criticize the clinical judgment exercised by Husby / Sørheim before the declaration was made, but it is natural to raise the issue of subsequent circumstances indicate that they were wrong and that Breivik has delusions style projections of grandiose character. I think of the blur we have registered by Breivik. He has systematically toned down its own role and that the Knights Templar after he became acquainted with the contents of the declaration by Husby / Sørheim.
- And Tørrissen has argued that this does not say that we are facing a delusion, but a person with personality disorders. Aspaas said that a person with a delusion would have been steeper and not let go the same extent as Breivik has done. The court will weigh this against the information we have received that Breivik want to appear sane.
- And for his own account, we will prosecutors add that we have experienced Breivik's response to our questions about the core of the Husby and Sørheim call his delusion, he has been dismissive, to say the least. He has been steep and not given way an inch as Engh noted tildigere. [Judge Arntzen: - What you are aiming to take concrete action when Holden?]
2:37 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Every time we have raised questions about the Knights Templar, we have been met with varying degrees of utsagt without content. This we see as perhaps an argument that it is a delusion. He maintains this information despite the overwhelming evidence in the opposite direction. Another factor that has inntuffet after Husby / Sørheim submitted its explanation is the observation. Aspaas Tørrissen said that it would reveal psychotic symptoms if Breivik was psychotic. To this must be noted that there is reason to question whether there is adequate drilled in the delusion under observation. We heard from Sigurd Jónsdóttir that the Knights Templar was not a particularly relevant theme of the personnel during the observation. (...)
2:38 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Third, I will point out that Husby / Sørheim in court after being made aware of the subsequent development maintained its stance on delusion. You will remember the seven points from Freeman that the said here in court. Again, I think it's difficult to say that the clinical judgment of Husby / Sørheim is incorrect.
- But it is also a criterion that delusion must be culturally inappropriate and completely impossible. Husby and Sørheim has said that no one could possibly get the mandate Breivik claims he possesses. For that we have heard several objections. Torgersen called for more science fiction, but as I understood from Melle Commission had no hesitation in placing the grandiose delusion under his hat paranoid schizophrenia.
- He believed therefore that, the Commission believed that the suspension that Husby P / Sørheim think you have established wild kvalitserer voted paranoid schizophrenia. Malt opened the sympotomer described in the declaration would fall under this rubric. [Arntzen: - Well, that's two of these criteria. It was a B and a D-criterion. (...) I did not understand the Commission to mean that they necessarily Accepts a bizarre delusion, but that he had accepted what others think like a bizarre (...)?]
- Then we are faced with a situation where the prosecution and the court has considered the needs differ. First, it is with this bizarre, but as we understood Melle, keeping the option open that there could be a delusion, which then could be classified as a grandiose delusion. If all else disappeared, it would perhaps be more natural to place it into the F 22, paranoid psychosis.
- It is certainly so if we have understood the question wrong so I assume that the right to correct us on that. Thirdly, for now, I've been on these terms. So I would say something about the Knights Templar. His work has had a significant focus during the entire case. So I thought to do the total opposite now and strip it down to a few sentences. Husby and Sørheim they have taken a position on the facts surrounding this, but says that the diagnosis stands on its own regardless of the prosecution.
- Aspaas / Tørrissen has not decided whether KT exist in the faded version now Breivik explains all about. Our view, and here I think we can include all the experts, also Aspaas / Tørrissen seem to agree that if Breivik faded version does not exist, but that he believes in it himself, there is a touch with reality. Therein lies a difficult invitation to the court: How can one determine whether Breivik actually think of this as everyone else sees is an impossibility?
2:44 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - For our part, we think on the basis of Breivik's intense defense that it is difficult to say with certainty that this is a deliberate lie on his part. The exit level two. Level three ... [Judge Arne Lyng: - Can I just pop a question in relation to lie. Engh was on terror resolutions. The fact that he steadfastly hold on to the stripped manufacture of KT, it is because he wants to create fear in the population? He has said that it is a cell there that strikes soon?]
- It is of course a trade or conflicting considerations that the court must weigh up against our position. I might add that we do not think that is how it hangs together. The reason for this is Breivik's desire to appear sane. Despite this, and that he receives irrefutable information that, he explained, has not taken place as he maintains it. We have this as an opportunity that he believes this himself.
- But we definitely Judge Lyng argument. The forensic psychiatric assessment. If the court ... [Arntzen: - A question. You were first built on what criteria you will not necessarily stop you to. (...) The use of neologismebegrepet and this with the bizarre. Can you imagine that in the clinical judgment has been passed from parts to whole and from whole to parts, so that all reinforce each other in the interpretation?] Yes. A good example is the I-criterion. I asked why on earth do you go into it. When the answer was in the street, the judge now moving in.
- But to make it a bit easy, as these criteria are not met, then this single criterion, as they outline the core delusion and adds considerable power and focus on. If that in itself is not affected by the diagnosis, we think it will be unusually creative work around the weakness of the grasp in the second and the experts emphasize that unless veiende arguments.
2:48 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - The forensic psychiatric assessment would I make cards. Because if the court finds that there is an F20 diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia, it is almost automatic to psychosis in the Penal Code are met. If the court finds it more natural to lead the F22 Breivk paranoid psychosis as if everything falls which the Commission said, we are in paranoid psychosis. Malt said in a direct question that he could not excluded the possibility of such a psychosis and it would be of questionable reality gad that it would fall within this diagnosis.
2:49 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - [Arntzen: - But Husby / Sørheim took the distance from this diagnosis?] Right. It might be something to think about if everything falls. The conclusion is that there is evidence that clearly suggests that Breivik was not psychotic on 22 July. For our vedkomnde raises Statement of Husby / Sørheim a real doubt whether he might actually have been psychotic. And then it follows that the current legislation that Breivik not be sentenced.
- WE is not convinced and confident that Breivik is insane, but we are in doubt. So our claim will be that he was transferred to compulsory psychiatric care. I will take the remaining fast. The terms of compulsory mental health care are met, and I will end with a subsidiary considerations. It is conceivable that the court considers the matter differently. We can imagine that the court consider the law differently. It is believed there is room to put the evidence requirement lower.
2:51 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - One other possible scenario is that the facts are evaluated differently, simply that the court is not considering Husby and Sørheim report with the Commission's accompanying statement as sufficient to raise doubts. Finally, imagine that you judges are in agreement with the prosecution in terms of fact and law, but that you want to take an initiative to create new law. For this scenario, I think it is useful for safety for the worst-case scenario. Namely, the abolition of the District Court's judgment in the Supreme Court lovanvedelse. The present case is an appropriate place to try to create new law.
- If the court chooses one of these options and falls that Breivik is sane, according to prosecutors that wild conditions of detention are met. I also take this very short. The legal text is in the juirdiske statement. When it comes to the longest time, there is no doubt that Breivik shall have legal punishment - 21 years in detention.
- We therefore terminates a subsidiary claim it. With regard to the subsidiary's claim custody must be included in deductions endured custody. We are currently considered that there is 336 days, and that he shall have an additional 45 days for complete isolation. The total allowance sounds of 381 days.
- Claim: Anders Breivik Behring, born 13 February 1979, sentenced to compulsory psychiatric care pursuant to Penal Code § 39
2:54 p.m. prosecutor Svein Holden: - Subsidised, Anders Breivik Behring, born 2/13/79, sentenced for violation of [lists a number of sections] - to the custody of a time frame of 21 years and a minimum of 10 years, and in the time frame deducting for the detention of 381 days.
2:55 p.m. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - Thank you for that. Fair. Engh, you should make a change in the indictment? [Engh: - If I can get the charge, I can make it tomorrow.] When I give thanks for the procedure. We have received a request from NRK that we should not broadcast Breivik's final remarks. (...) We take the decision tomorrow.
3:01 p.m. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - When we meet at 09:00 tomorrow. The court is adjourned.