Archive for the ‘Trial’ Category
Breivik’s statement in court August 24, 2012
(This is a transcript of Anders Behring Breivik’s statement in the Oslo District Court after the reading of the verdict, based on an audio recording.
Thank you.
The first thing I informed the court on April 16th was the following: I do not recognize [the authority of] this court because you have received your mandate from political parties that support multiculturalism.
By setting aside the claim of ethnic and cultural emergency self-defence in this case, by sentencing a representative of the Norwegian Resistance Movement, you have sided with the multicultural parliament majority in Norway, and, thereby, the Oslo District Court has flagged support for the multicultural ideology.
As I do not recognize the court, I can not legitimize Oslo District Court by accepting the verdict. The verdict is, in my eyes, illegitimate. At the same time, I can not appeal the verdict, because I, by appealing, [will] legitimize the court.
I wish to end with an apology. I wish to apologize to all militant nationalists in Norway and Europe that I did not manage [court microphone disabled] to kill more traitors.
_____
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court June 22, 2012
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012
Related post: Breivik’s statement in court February 6, 2012
Breivik found legally accountable and sentenced to 21 years in prison
The Oslo District Court has ruled that Anders Behring Breivik was legally accountable for his actions on 7/22/11, and has sentenced him to twenty-one years detention in prison, reports Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang (VG).
Detention is a particular type of sentencing according to Norwegian law, applicable when the court believes there is great danger that the crime in question may be repeated, or believes that the convicted person poses a danger to society.
The maximum timeframe for a detention verdict is twenty-one years, but it may be extended with additional five year periods if prosecutors can convice the court that the legal requirements for detention still remains.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Breivik sane – sentenced to detention
OSLO DISTRICT COURT (VG Nett) The court believes terror accused Anders Behring Breivik (33) is accountable and sentences him to 21 years detention with a minimum term of 10 years.
The judgement is read for Breivik by the court administrator Wenche Elizabeth Arnzten 10 o’clock Friday afternoon. The entire court room nr 250 stood upright during the reading.
- Anders Behring Breivik is sentenced to detention. The verdict is unanimous, says Arntzen.
In the press room a loud murmur spread among those watching the large screens, while it in the court room around Breivik is quiet and calm.
The whole verdict is 90 pages, and Judge Arntzen and professional judge Arne Lyng will share in reading between them. Breivik killed 77 people and injured 42 seriously with the bomb in the government quarter and the massacre at Utøya.
Original article: Breivik tilregnelig – dømt til forvaring
Related Wikipedia article [in Norwegian]: Forvaring [detention]
Court Medical Commission appears not to have approved second psychiatric report
Confusion has arisen as to whether or not the Court Medical Commission, an organ that oversees reports submitted by court-appointed psychiatrists, has aproved the second psychiatric report in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.
While the Court Medical Commission approved the controversial first psychiatric report without any comments, it requested additional information from the second pair of psychiatrists who concluded that Breivik is legally accountable for his actions. Specifically, the commission requested further discussion regarding Breivik’s youth and how contradictory evidence has been weighted.
After the psychiatrists Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen submitted the additional information, the commission issued a statement that it acknowledged the response, and requested that the two psychiatrists provide further information in court.
Now, according to Verdens Gang (VG), co-judge Arne Lyng has taken the unusual step of sending a letter to the commission asking it to clarify whether the report has been approved or not. The question of legal accountability is the main question for the court to decide.
On Friday, June 1, the court received a response from the commission. According to VG, Judge Wenche Arntzen stated that the court interprets the letter as meaning the commission still has two objections to the report. One of Breivik’s lawyers, Tord Jordet, says to NRK: “There is no clear conclusion. The commission has sent a long letter, there are many words, but it is a bit difficult to understand. The commission has neither approved or disapproved the report,” he says to NRK.
Before the trial began, Health Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen (Labor) attempted to rush through legislation that would make it legal in Norway to establish one-man psychiatric hospitals which could be used to house prisoners, including political dissenters, who are considered a security threat.
Most psychiatrists and political commentators following the trial, however, seem to be of the opinion that Breivik does not appear in court as described by the first psychiatric report, which was as a low-functioning, psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic. To the contrary, most court observers report that Breivik appears composed, well spoken and reflective.
Google translation:
The court asks the Commission to explain
* Geir Lippestad: violation of the law
* Terje Tørrissen: “Unclear for many”
* Yvonne Mette Larsen questions the Commission’s impartiality
In a remarkable letter asking judges in terror case The forensic Commission clarify whether the recent psychiatric report is approved or not.
The Commission’s statement of 21 May, and rumblings in the media from Commission members, has created uncertainty about what is the outcome of their review of the additional declaration to Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, the two recently appointed of four experts in the terror case.
Defender Geir Lippestad think it would be a violation of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is not clear whether the Commission has approved the report or not.
The Commission shall enter and witness first on the trial fourth last day.
Lippestad think it must be clarified as soon as possible, the second report is good fishing or not.
“We must know in good time before these witnesses shall be the court, so we can prepare ourselves and possibly consider new evidence means,” said Lippestad….
Original article: Retten ber kommisjonen om forklaring
_____
Related article: Rieber-Mohn: “Never experienced this before” (Rieber-Mohn: “Aldri opplevd dette før”)
Related article: “Very unlikely” that Breivik is psychotic (“Helt usannsynlig” at Breivik er psykotisk)
Related article: “Significant deficiencies” by Breivik Report (“Vesentlige mangler” ved Breivik-rapport)
Related article: The Commission has not yet approved (Kommisjonen har ennå ikke godkjent)
Letter from the Court Medical commission [in Norwegian - opens pdf]
Oslo District Court bans public broadcast of conservative expert witnesses
In what appears to be a political decision, the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) has announced that it will only permit the public broadcast of a selection of the expert witnesses in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik. While the most well known expert witnessses with a left-wing ideology will be allowed to be broadcast on national television, equivalent expert witnesses representing the political right, such as the well known blogger Fjordman, will not be permitted to be broadcast.
The decision does not come as a suprise. So far during the trial, the court has not appeared concerned about being perceived as biased. For example, the court denied Breivik’s testimony to be broadcast while at the same time allowing the broadcast of the prosecutors’ accusations against him. The court has also placed little emphasis on the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens can follow trials in order to check the integrity of the court.
Both the Justice Department and the Supreme Court were victims of the bomb attack in Oslo. The 900kg bomb was placed right outside the Justice Department and the offices were completely destroyed by the explosion. Four members of staff were killed on 7/22, three in Oslo and one while attending the Labor Youth camp at Utøya.
Breivik has stated in court that he does not recognize the Oslo District Court as legitimate because he believes the court receives its authority from the Labor Party.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Fear judges censor the controversial witnesses
The right-wing journalist Ole Jørgen Anfindsen considering refusing to testify after the judges in terror trial has determined that his testimony should not be broadcast. “They create an A-and B-layers based on ideology,” he said.
“I have come into a situation where I seriously doubt I’m willing to stand as a witness,” said he NRK.no after it became known that the judges will not allow his testimony in the trial of Anders Breivik Behring broadcast.
Also Arne Tumyr, head of the organization Stop the Islamization of Norway, reacts strongly to news that his testimony does not seem to be on TV anyway.
“As it now stands, there is a severe censorship, there is a legal assault, it is to withhold information from the public,” he said.
Viewers will see fewer testimony
Friday came Oslo District Court with a new decision about which witnesses can be broadcast and not. Since the court has previously determined that Breivik’s comments on the testimony can not be broadcast, the judges decided that neither the testimony of the officers or observers from Dikemark could be sent on TV.
The rationale was that it would create a distorted impression in the media if the statements were sent to the witnesses on television, while Breivik’s statements were not shown….
But when they lists the witnesses who can be broadcast (see fact box to the right in case), several defense witnesses voter omitted.
Tumyr and Anfindsen is far from the only one.
According to the information now is available on the website of the Oslo District Court , should not the testimony of Peder Jensen Nøstvold [Fjordman] broadcast. The same applies to Islamist Mullah Krekar and Mohyeldeen Muhammad, the Islam critical writer Bruce Bawer, a former Norwegian Defense League leader Ronny Alte, filmmaker Walid al-Kubaisi, neo-Nazis Tore Tvedt and peace researcher Johan Galtung.
NRK has been in contact with the Oslo City Court, which currently can not provide a clear answer as to why some of the witnesses can be broadcast, while the witnesses in the same category can not….
According to Ole Jørgen Anfindsen bears the character of the court’s decision that the judges have separated the witnesses for ideology.
“They divide the witnesses into the A-team and B team,” said he NRK.no.
Informaticians HonestThinking runs the website and in the book “Suicide paradigm”, he writes that immigration and racial mixing will take the life of the western civilization. After 22 in July he told NRK.no that he wants to downplay the rhetoric of fear to inspire potential rightwing terrorists.
Anfindsen saw it as a personal burden to be called as a witness by the defense to Breivik. Nevertheless, he told the defenders that he wants his testimony to be broadcast on television. For him, it is important that the public can view the entire testimony – without being edited by others.
“Broadcast of witness statements ensure transparency, and also help to prevent misunderstandings that might otherwise arise,” says Anfindsen.
Original article: Frykter dommerne sensurerer kontroversielle vitner
_____
Court decision [in Norwegian - opens pdf]
Related article: “Incomprehensible if no Islam critics are broadcast” (“Uforståelig om ingen islamkritikere blir kringkastet”)
Related post: Appeal of decision not to allow public broadcast of Breivik testimony rejected
Related post: Oslo District Court denies broadcast of Breivik’s testimony to the public
Related post: Leadership of the Norwegian Justice Department resigns
Immigrant set himself on fire in front of Oslo District Court
A 49 year man with an immigrant background set himself on fire and ran towards the police barrier in front of the Oslo District Court on Tuesday, May 15th, according to Verdens Gang (VG). Authorities have not disclosed which country the man is originally from.
According to VG, witnesses report that the man shouted “it hurts” and “shoot me, shoot me.” Dagbladet reported that according to a surveillance video of the incident, the man ran around engulfed in flames for about a minute before police officers arrived and put out the fire by throwing water on him.
Before the man set himself on fire, he reportedly stepped into a lawyer’s office and left behind letters of refusal from the Social Security Services together with a handwritten note stating that he felt the victim of a plot and that nobody understood him.
Four days before the incident, a man from Iraq man was dragged out of the courtroom after having shouted and thrown a shoe at Breivik.
Google translation:
Burning man laid in the ground at the courthouse
15/05/12
It was at 13:42 that a man set himself on fire and tried to get through the fences and in the security check in front of the courthouse in the capital.
He moved first around the tram stop outside the courthouse, before he suddenly took out two bottles of liquid.
“He had two bottles of flammable liquid which he poured over himself,” says an eyewitness to VGTV….
Original article: Brennende mann lagt i bakken ved tinghuset
_____
Related article: Submitted envelope to a lawyer just before he set fire to himself (Leverte konvolutt til advokat like før han tente på seg selv)
Related article: Brant for a minute before police threw themselves upon him (Brant i et minutt før politiet kastet seg over ham)
Related article: Man set fire to himself at the courthouse (Mann tente på seg selv ved tinghuset)
Related article: The police want to talk to man who burned himself (Politiet vil snakke med mann som tente på seg selv)
Iraqi man shouts and throws shoe at Breivik in court
Verdens Gang (VG) reports that a man jumped up from his seat and threw a shoe at Anders Behring Breivik in court today.
Breivik was quickly escorted out of the courtroom and the shoe thrower, a man from Iraq, was quickly dragged away by police officers while he shouted in English: “Go to hell, go to hell, you killed my brother.”
The shoe that was thrown hit one of Breivik’s lawyers, Vibeke Hein Bæra. According to VG, the incident was a dramatic event that caused very many to begin crying. Some, however, applauded the attack. Judge Wenche Arntzen immediately ordered a break in the court session.
Authorities drove the attacker away in an ambulance rather than in a police car.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Man threw shoe towards Breivik
05/11/2012
When Breivik was brought into court again, he spoke with his lawyers and gesticulated strongly.
“If there is someone who wants to throw something, you can throw at me when I go in or out [of the room],” says Breivik.
“Do not throw at my lawyer,” he said further.
He has now taken place at the dock, after a short conversation with the defenders.
The judges are back, and the court is set again. The Judge Wenche Arntzen does not mention the incident.
“Here you go, when we continue,” she said….
Original article: Mann kastet sko mot Breivik
_____
A few hours after the incident, Aftenposten spoke to the attacker, whose name is Hayder Mustafa Qasim.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
“I had to give the killer a message from everyone he has ruined the lives of”
05/11/2012
“My brother was killed on Utøya. He was alone in Norway, without family. The killer took his life. And he destroyed the life of me and my family. I have traveled from Iraq to Norway to be present in court. And it has made a huge impression on me,” he said.
His brother, Karar Mustafa Qasim, came to Norway as a single asylum seeker from Iraq as a 16-year-old. On Utøya, at the Bolshevik Bay, he was hit four times by the killer’s bullets….
Original article: «Jeg måtte gi drapsmannen en beskjed fra alle han har ødelagt livet for»
Another co-judge in Breivik trial forced to step down
The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) decided today that co-judge, Thomas Indrebø, should step down, after it became known yesterday that Indrebø had made strong statements regarding Breivik before being appointed co-judge.
It appears that Indrebø may have an Italian middle (sur)name (Ciccone) that he has not been using when serving as a co-judge in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.
Using the alias “Thomas Ciccone”, Thomas [Ciccone] Indrebø commented on the Facebook group of VG Nett on July 23 of last year: “Death penalty is the only fair thing in this case!!!!!!!!!!”
Before the trial commenced, another co-judge had to step down after VG revealed that the son of that co-judge was a prominent Labor Youth Organization (AUF) politician.
A reserve co-judge will now take the place of Indrebø.
Yesterday, Breivik objected to the court’s neutrality. He said that the Oslo District Court gets its powers from political parties that support multiculturalism, and that the primary judge, Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, is a friend of former Justice Minister Hanne Harlem.
The Justice Department was completely destroyed by the 7/22 explosion, and Hanne Harlem is the sister of former Prime Minister and Labor Party leader, Gro Harlem Brundtland.
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Removed as co-judge after death penalty message
04/17/12
Oslo District Court (VG Nett) Thomas Indrebø (33) is finished as lay judge, because he wrote that the defendant Anders Behring Breivik should be punished with death.
Late last night it became known, via vepsen.no, that one of the lay judges in the 22 July case has taken position on both the question of guilt and punishement reaction in social media. This was new to the court, despite the fact that all the judges in advance were asked specifically about online activity.
It meant that the District Court Judge Wenche Arntzen started rettsdag second with one hour break, so they could make a decision in the unfortunate case.
“His statements are likely to weaken confidence in whether he will consider the question of guilt and punishment sanctions in an unbiased manner,” Arntzen said afterwards.
She pointed out that the fact that such statements was a topic in relation with him being appointed, further weakened the confidence in Indrebø.
“All co-judges have in several meetings been asked whether they have made statements regarding punishment and guilt. That he has not stated this before causes confidence to be weakened further,” Arntzen read from the decision.
The court was unanimous when they decided that Indrebø is disqualified. He did not participate himself in the evaluation.
Both the prosecutors, the defence and plaintiffs’ lawyers agreed that Indrebø had to resign as co-judge when the information about the online activity became known.
The first replacement judge, pensioner Anne Elisabeth Wisløff (71), will take Indrebø’s place. Ole Westerås (46) from Lier will step in as new reserve.
When District Court Judge Wenche Arntzen took up the question of impartiality of the lay judge in court, Breivik smiled. The accused 33-year-old discussed with his defender just after court was adjourned – still with a smile around his mouth….
Original article: Fjernet som medommer etter dødsstraffmelding
_____
Related post: Co-judge in Breivik trial found to have conflict of interest, steps down
Related post: Court decides that regular co-judges be appointed in Breivik trial
7/22 trial schedule
The schedule for the trial against Anders Behring Breivik is as follows:
Monday, April 16 – Monday, April 23
Indictment. Introduction Lecture. Anders Behring Breivik explains himself from Tuesday April 17.
Tuesday, April 23 – Monday, April 30
Bomb and the scene, Oslo. The deceased and the victims Oslo.
Thursday, May 3 – Monday, June 4
Arrival Utøya. Weapons and venue, Utøya. The deceased Utøya. The victims, Utøya.
Monday, June 4 – Tuesday, June 5
Former friends, mother and online contacts about contact with Breivik.
Wednesday, June 6
The [police] investigation.
Thursday, June 7 – Friday, June 15
Evidence from the defence and plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Monday, June 18 – Wednesday, June 20
Forensic psychiatry.
Wednesday, June 20 – Friday, June 22
Procedures.
(Source NRK)
Original article: Slik blir Breivik-rettssaken
Norwegian Supreme Court rejects appeal to broadcast Breivik testimony
The Norwegian Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by the Norwegian Editors Association of the decision by Oslo District Court (Tingrett) to not allow Breivik’s testimony to be publically broadcast, reports NRK.
According to the Norwegian constitution, citizens have the right to follow trials.
NRK reports that in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik, not a singe person from the general public will be allowed inside the courtroom. One hundred forty (140) members of the public will be permitted to watch a televised broadcast of the proceedings in another room.
Google translation:
Supreme Court rejects appeal from the press
4/13/2012
Supreme Court rejects media appeal of the District Court’s decision not to allow the transfer of Anders Behring Breivik explanation.
In ruling from the Supreme Court states that the appeal of the Norwegian Press Association and the Norwegian Association for the editor to broadcast Anders Behring Breivik’s testimony in court is rejected.
But the media can transfer directly from the experts’ testimony during the terror trial, it was also decided today….
The confusion around Anders Behring Breivik’s mental health allows as much as possible of the trial should be broadcast, according to the Norwegian press.
Therefore, the editors asked again for permission to send part of the explanation to Breivik on TV and radio.
Previously, the Oslo District Court and Court of Appeal said no to the transfer.
The court believes they can deny broadcast because it will cause an unreasonable burden on families and victims….
Original article: Høyesterett avviser pressens anke
_____
Google translation:
“Like you do in dictatorships”
12.apr.2012
Per Edgar Kokkvold of the Norwegian Press Association believes it is very important that Anders Behring Breivik explanation on TV. Now the case is heard by the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal rejected the 27 March TV transmission of Anders Behring Breivik’s testimony during the trial of terror. But the Association of Norwegian Editors and the Norwegian Press Association has appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Secretary General of the Norwegian Press Association Per Edgar Kokkvold think it’s important that people get to see Breivik statement. This is especially because the expert report, issued Tuesday concluded that he is sane, contrary to the initial report….
- Not a rule worthy
Criminal Law Professor Alf Peter Hogberg also find it problematic that the explanation will not be televised. He justifies it with the rule of law to the mass murderer.
- The fact that his testimony will not be broadcast if the complete story becomes. It should include broadcast accusations, but you can not hear the defendant himself. It is not a rule of law worthy, that’s how you do in dictatorships. And the decision of this happens at some point the court will not even have a sense of guilt. It creates an imbalance in relation to the defendant, said Hogberg.
- So you think his statement should be broadcast?
- Whether to broadcast the rest, including the charges, then one should probably it. I also mothensyn, to protect those who are victims of this. But do you make a cross with some shows and some TV broadcasts. It is shameful. Either let one be to broadcast or the broadcast everything, he said….
Original article: “Sånn man gjør i diktaturer”
_____
Google translation:
Thus Breivik-trial
04.15.2012
For ten long weeks in the spring of 2012, the world’s attention will be focused on selling 250 in Oslo Courthouse and the trials against accused terrorist Anders Behring Breivik (33)….
Although the press does not have the right to broadcast the entire trial, the main negotiations in the Norwegian courts generally public.
This means that it is still allowed to refer what is said inside the courtroom, even if you can not send audio and video on TV or radio.
Public access in the courts also means that anyone who wants to follow the hearing from the audience is entitled to it on a par with journalists and the victim.
In Breivik issue is the main hall closed to the general public, but it’s set up a separate room on the same floor is reserved for the public.
Magistrate Geir Engebretsen said that the public who wish to follow the case from the courthouse can expect a comprehensive safety check before they are inserted. Due to lack of space also applies the principle of “first come first served.”
There are 140 seats in total, and those who want to follow the trial must obtain passes in the Court of Appeal as the court one day in advance. It is not possible to reserve tickets….
Original article: Slik blir Breivik-rettssaken
_____
Related post: Appeal of decision not to allow public broadcast of Breivik testimony rejected
Appeal of decision not to allow public broadcast of Breivik testimony rejected
The Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) has rejected the appeal of the decision by the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) not to allow Anders Behring Breivik’s testimony to be broadcast to the public, reports Verdens Gang (VG).
The decision was appealed by the Norwegian Editors Asssociation and the Norwegian Press Association, as well as by Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad.
Leader of the Norwegian Editors Association, Nils Øy, says that the organization is considering whether to appeal to the Norwegian Supreme Court, writes Dagsavisen.
Due to the decision by the court to reserve almost all seats in the courtroom for the press and victims and their relatives, the Oslo District Court has broken with the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens have the right to follow court cases in person in their entirety in order to ensure that judges follow the law and that trials are fair.
Google translation:
No TV transmission of Breivik’s explanation
27/03/12
The media will not transfer Anders Behring Breivik’s explanation in the Oslo District Court, the Court of Appeal ruled….
The Court concludes, however, that there has not been any wrong interpretation of the law in court, and reject the part of the appeal. The judges rejected the other arguments in the appeal paper.
The ruling shows that the interests of those affected and bereaved weighs heavily, giving the court the opportunity to refuse “photography or recordings” that will lead to an “undue burden”….
Original article: Ingen TV-overføring av Breiviks forklaring
_____
Google translation:
TV censorship
29 March 2011
The Court of Appeal has upheld the District Court’s decision that Anders Behring Breivik’s explanation can not be communicated directly off the television.
This is a form of censorship. The Court is completely outdated when it comes to relate to today’s media world….
Population, not just those that are present in court, is entitled to consider whether it can really voice that Breivik is irresponsible. Consideration for the relatives can not stand over the public right of access. Television pictures will help remove some of the doubts about the man’s mental condition. There is no question of giving Breivik a soapbox for their insane political opinions, but to document the main issue in the most severe trial in post-war period. Norwegian Editors’ Association considers whether the case should be brought before the Supreme Court. Our request is that you have to do….
Original article: TV-sensur
_____
Court decision (in Norwegian): PDF
Related post: Court decision to deny public broadcast of Breivik’s testimony appealed
Related post: Oslo District Court denies broadcast of Breivik’s testimony to the public
Co-judge in Breivik trial found to have conflict of interest, steps down
The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) has decided that one of the co-judges appointed for the trial against Anders Behring Breivik has a conflict of interest and must step down, reports Verdens Gang (VG).
The individual in question, Ole Johnny Foss, has a son who is a prominent Labor Youth Organization (AUF) politician in Oslo. The shootings at Utøya occurred at the AUF’s annual summer camp for aspiring Labor Party politicians.
None of the participants of the trial questioned the neutrality of Foss until VG began writing about the circumstances over the last few weeks.
Google translation:
Breivik-lay judge is disqualified
26/03/12
One of the lay judges in terrorism case being removed because of his son’s position in the AUF.
Ole Johnny Foss, who was to be a deputy associate judge in the case were known disqualified by the Oslo City Court today. It happened after the VG first mentioned her son’s membership in the AUF.
The court will now draw a new deputy associate judge who will take part in the trial….
The son of Foss is a prominent politician in the AUF capital and committee chairman in one of the districts. He is also vice chairman of the AUF team in the same district. Five days after the terror told his son about the attacks in a Norwegian newspaper, and told also that he knew more people who lost their lives Utøya….
Original article: Breivik-meddommer er inhabil
_____
Related post: Court decides that regular co-judges be appointed in Breivik trial
Court decision to deny public broadcast of Breivik’s testimony appealed
The Norwegian Editors Association and the Norwegian Press Association have appealed the decision by the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) to deny permission for the public broadcast of Anders Behrik Beivik’s testimony, Dagens Næringsliv reports. “The degree of public interest is without comparison in recent Norwegian court history,” the associations write in the appeal.
Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad, has also appealed the decision according to Rogalands Blad. “The accused believes that his views and explanations at times are taken completely out of context and are used to assign him attitudes and opinions he does not have. Only by the court permitting the broadcast of the accused’s testimony can he get an opportunity to give a conherent explanation of his actions and the background for these,” Lippestad writes in the appeal.
“A broadcast testimony will also give people a possibility to get a more nuanced view on Breivik’s accountability,” Lippestad writes.
Due to the decision by the court to reserve almost all seats in the courtroom for the press and victims and their relatives, the Oslo District Court has broken with the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens have the right to follow court cases in person in their entirety in order to ensure that judges follow the law and that trials are fair.
Google translation:
The press want to film Breivik explanation
03/15/2012
Press Association and Editors Association has appealed that Behring Anders Breivik’s testimony should not be filmed at the trial. They point out that the case is extraordinary.
“The degree of public interest is unprecedented in recent Norwegian legal history,” said the appeal, which is passed on Court of Appeal.
Oslo District Court ruled last week that it would be a severely limited access to the broadcast of the case. Among other things, decided that it should not be allowed to broadcast the defendant’s explanation.
Norwegian Press Association and the Association of Norwegian Editors believes the court has made a number of miscalculations. They believe the decision is based on an incorrect legal interpretation and application of law, errors of fact and that it constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.
Press Association and Editors Association appeals the decision that the press can not shoot Behring Anders Breivik’s testimony during his trial. They point out that the case is extraordinary….
Original article: Pressen vil filme Breiviks forklaring
_____
Google translation:
Want TV coverage
3/20/2012
Anders Breivik Behring believes the trial against him is unbalanced if he can not explain himself in open cameras and anchor refusal by Oslo City Court.
Monday sent a lawyer Geir Lippestad appeal against the refusal of direct transfer of Breivik’s statement to the Court of Appeal. Lippestad refers to the application from the Norwegian Press Association and the Association of Norwegian Editors who also has appealed the decision that the expected five-day explanation from Breivik not be broadcast.
Lippestad mentions that the decision to deny the transfer based on incorrect interpretation of the law, improper application of law and errors of fact and that it will lead to an oversimplified public reproduction of the contents in the main proceedings.
“The decision not to allow the broadcast of the defendant appealed to this explanation of the accused’s request,” says the appeal paper.
He writes that a direct transfer from the court will ensure Breivik a possibility that the public can access the explanation, “as it actually performed….”
Original article: Vil ha TV-dekning
_____
Related post: Oslo District Court denies broadcast of Breivik’s testimony to the public
Oslo District Court denies broadcast of Breivik’s testimony to the public
The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) announced on Friday that the press should not be allowed to film Anders Behring Breivik’s testimony in court, reports Aftenposten.
Aftenposten writes that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) will record the entire trial and broadcast it live from the Oslo District Court to several regional district courts. The court, however, has decided that only the opening and closing remarks of the prosecutors and defence lawyers, as well as the reading of the verdict by the judge, shall be broadcast to the general public.
Verdens Gang (VG) writes that the Oslo District Court has postponed making a decision on whether testimonies of expert witnesses or police investigators should be allowed to be broadcast to the public.
“A testimony in front of open camera could contribute to shift focus from the actions he is accused of towards his ideological and political message,” Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen wrote in the decision, reports NRK. The statement is surprising as citizens have the right to defend themselves in court against charges brought against them by the state by explaining the reasons for their actions.
Breivik has previously told the court that he is a cell commander of an organization called the Knights Templar, and that he represents the Norwegian resistance movement. In police questioning, Breivik has explained that he belives the attacks were gruesome but necessary, and that the widespread censorship in Norwegian society of ideas critical of multiculturalism makes armed struggle necessary.
Leader of the Norwegian Editors Association (Norsk Redaktørforening), Nils Øy, said in an interview with Agderposten that the court announces its own failure when it uses as its main argument that it does not wish Breivik to have an opportunity to speak about his ideology. It is the task of the judges to make sure that Breivik stays on topic in court, and to interrupt him if he attempts anything else, Øy explained to the newspaper. “Here we stand ahead of the trial of the possibly worst crimnal act in historic times in Norway,” he says.
In their application for broadcasting from the trial, the Norwegian Editors Association and the Norwegian Press Association emphasized that the broadcasting of the court would provide an important opportunity for the public to check the conduct of the court. However, as the recent publication of the indictment and reporting from the last court proceeding show, the Norwegian press frequently censors or omits factual details. Despite a large number of journalists being present at the February court hearing, only two publications appear to have published the brief statement Breivik made in its entirety. Because of incidences such as these, many informed readers in Norway have a deep distrust of the media, and are not confident that media reporting from the trial will be accurate. It is against this background that the importance placed by the Norwegian Editors Association and the Norwegian Press Association on a live broadcast must be understood. A live broadcast would help reduce speculation by the general public as to whether the trial was fair.
Usually regular citizens have the opportunity to attend trials so that they can see for themselves whether the judge follows the law. Apparently, however, this will not be the case in the trial against Breivik. A large number of seats in the courtroom have been reserved for news organisations, whose lack of thoroughness in reporting is ironically reflected by the fact that the list of news organizations that have requested accreditation has not been published anywhere else than on this blog. In addition, the Oslo District Court has announced that it will give preferential treatment to victims of the attacks and their relatives when deciding who shall be given access to the limited number of seats available to the public in the court room. According to newspaper reports, it seems that, in reality, this policy will make it impossible for members of the general public to follow the trial.
Thus it appears that the court places little emphasis on the importance of maintaining the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens can follow trials in order to control whether the judges in question follow the law, and to check if the press accurately reports what is being said during the trial.
Breivik’s appearance in court is expected to be important for the court in deciding whether Breivik is legally accountable or not. Denying the broadcast of Breivik’s testimony will, therefore, make it very difficult for the general public to evalute whether the judgement of the court in this matter seemed reasonable, and to what extent the Oslo District Court had upheld justice in this case.
The decision to allow the broadcast of several participants in a trial, but not the person accused, also indicates that the court is not concerned about being perceived as partial. This is noteworthy, as both the Justice Department and Supreme Court were victims of the bomb attack in Oslo, and Breivik has stated in court that he does not recognize the Oslo District Court as legitimate because he believes the court receives its authority from the Labor Party.
Google translation:
The press cannot film Behring Breivik explanation
09.mar.2012
But the press will film portions of the trial, including the reading of the indictment.
The Oslo District Court said in a statement Friday afternoon.
The court on application from the Association of Norwegian Editors and the Norwegian Press Association issued the press permission to broadcast the opening of main proceedings in which the indictment read out, and introductions from the prosecutor and defense counsel in the case.
In addition, the press allowed to film during the closing procedures in the July 22-trial.
Under the procedures summarizes the prosecutor and defense counsel that has emerged during the presentation of evidence and draw conclusions about guilt, questions about mental incapacity and a penalty. Also verdict will be open for filming.
The media will not broadcast the parts of the trial in which Behring Anders Breivik explains itself. The same applies when the victim from Utøya and government quarter explanatory.
This is in line with what the practice has been in previous trials….
Original article: Pressen får ikke filme Behring Breiviks forklaring
_____
Google translation:
Breivik’s explanation could not be filmed
09/03/12
Oslo City Court does not allow media to film Behring Anders Breivik’s testimony in the trial against him starting in April.
The district court decided on Friday the scope of what can be transferred directly from the terror case. Permission is granted to the opening of the trial and the parties’ opening speeches broadcast. Also the final procedures will be transferred.
Neither Breivik’s own testimony or the victim’s testimony, however, can be transferred directly. When the Oslo District Court has received evidence of the prosecution task, it will be decided whether the explanation from the professionals, like police investigators, or others may be transferred….
Original article: Breiviks forklaring kan ikke filmes
_____
Google translation:
Cannot film Breivik in court
03/09/12
The court feared in part that openly would affect Breivik to talk more about politics than about the acts he has committed….
Because of very great public interest, has a total Norwegian press corps asked Oslo District Court if you send the greater part of the July 22 trial, than is normal in major criminal cases.
Also defending Geir Lippestad have requested the most transparency on behalf of his client.
The terrorist suspect 33-year-old has even asked for minimal restrictions on filming during the trial because he wants to reach out to as many people as possible.
In her statement writes Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen, among other things:
“The court believes there is a real danger that the defendant’s testimony would be affected if the broadcast, directly or edited broadcasts. One explanation for the open camera will be able to contribute to turning the focus away from the actions he is accused of, and against his ideological and political message….”
General secretary, Nils E. Øy, in the Norwegian Editors’ Association is disappointed with the decision of the court, and alerts rematch. Friday it was investigated whether the decision from the Oslo District Court could be appealed to the Court of Appeal.
It was unclear whether there was such a possibility, but likely to appeal court to make a decision on this issue within a few days, said.
Original article: Får ikke filme Breivik i retten
_____
Google translation:
Rematch on televised Breivik
09/03/2012
The judges in the case of terrorism fears that Anders Breivik Behring will testify differently in court if what he says will be broadcast in the media….
Chairman Nils Øy in the Norwegian Editors’ Association is disappointed with the decision of the court. The main argument of the judges for denying the transfer is that they will not give Breivik a soapbox for his ideology, experience Øy as an admission of failure from the judges. He says it is their job to keep Breivik to issue and cancel his explanation if he tries to talk about something else.
“Here we are facing the trials for perhaps the worst crime in historical time in Norway, said Øy to emphasize the importance of the case….”
Original article: Omkamp om TV-overført Breivik
_____
Related article: Breivik demands to be tried by military court (Breivik krever å bli stilt for militærdomstol)
Related post: AUF and prosecutors do not wish broadcast of Breivik’s testimony
Incomplete Breivik indictment presented to the public
State’s Attorneys, Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden, presented the indictment of Anders Behring Breivik at a press conference in Oslo on Wednesday. Initially, the State’s Attorneys had decided to censor the document, a very unusual decision. They said they wished to keep confidential the names of the victims and details about what happened on Utøya. According to Aftenposten, after the newspaper wrote about it, the State’s Attorneys changed their view.
The Norwegian press, however, have apparently decided to censor the indictment themselves.
According to Norwegian law, prosecutors can withold indictments from the press or prohibit some of their contents from being published if the contents would pose a threat to national security, but this does not appear to be the case in this instance. According to AttackOnTheLaborParty’s sources, Norwegian journalists have been given complete copies of the indictment.
It appears that all Norwegian newspapers have removed detailed descriptions of injuries and the causes of death for those listed as killed in the indictment, and have censored the names of those individuals who were injured by the explosion or the shooting at Utøya. The degree of censoring is not uniform and it is possible to parse information from several news sources. However, since none of the newspapers have published the indictment in its entirety, some uncertainty remains as to what the original eighteen page indictment looks like.
From what has been reported by the Norwegian media, the following can be established: Breivik is charged with having comitted an act of terrorism and premeditated murder, with the intent of causing serious disruption to the functioning of the executive branch of the government. The prosecutors request that Breivik be sentenced to psychiatric care but they do say, however, that if evidence is brought forward during the trial which suggests that he is legally accountable for his actions, they may request a prison sentence.
The indictment is reportedly divided in two sections: one related to the bombing outside the Prime Minister’s office, and one for the attack on Utøya. On Utøya, all but two of the victims, who died from drowning or falling, died from being shot. The majority of the victims were shot in the head, and it appears that most victims were shot more than once.
Some individuals were shot very many times, but because of the withholding of information, the indentities of these victims remain uncertain. The Norwegian media has previously reported that several participants at the Utøya summer camp were relatives of well known Labor politicians.
Over 200 individuals who received smaller injuries from the explosion in front of the Prime Minister’s office and several governmental departments, including the Department of Justice, have been omitted from the indictment. Also, people who were directly shot at by Breivik on Utøya, but not hit, have been left out of the indictment.
It is unusual for the State’s Attorneys not to prosecute for all crimes committed when evidence is readily available, and the judgement of the State’s Attorneys in this matter has been criticized. Some victims from Utøya have stated that they feel overlooked by the court system. The State’s Attorneys have justified their decision by saying that prosecuting in a regular fashion would have required a very thorough court case in which evidence had to be presented as to whether Breivik intended to harm each person in question.
A more thorough court case could possibly have revealed more information about which governmental departments suffered the most staff injuries, and whether any politicians were injured in the Oslo explosion. Similarly, it could have made the full course of events at Utøya better known.
Google translation:
Attorney censor names and details of the terror charges
01.mar.2012
The district attorney has decided to scramble all the names of those killed and those who were tried were killed, both in its ministries and Utøya in the indictment against Anders Behring Breivik….
Original article: Statsadvokaten sladder navn og detaljer i terrortiltalen
_____
Google translation:
Turns – disclose all charges
02.mar.2012
Yesterday, prosecutors decided that the names and details of the terror charges against Anders Behring Breivik would censor. Today they turned completely….
Original article: Snur – offentliggjør hele tiltalen
_____
Google translation:
Here is the indictment against Anders Breivik Behring
07/03/12
VG publish here all the indictment against Anders Breivik Behring. We have omitted the names of the injured from the ministries and Utøya, and also excluded damage to the descriptions in the indictment:
Hereby sets Anders Breivik Behring, b 2/13/1979 currently in custody pursuant to Penal Code § 39 indicted by the Oslo District Court for the acquisition of a judgment on the transfer to compulsory mental health care, see Mental Health Act, Chapter 5, in a psychotic state to have made an otherwise criminal act, namely the violation of:
I
In Penal Code § 147a, first paragraph, a and b, see § § 148 first paragraph, first sentence option and 233 subsections of having committed a terrorist act, by violating Penal Code § 148 first paragraph, first sentence alternative (to cause cracking whereby loss of life or widespread destruction of foreign property can be easily caused) and Penal Code § 233 subsections (premeditated murder and there are particularly aggravating circumstances), with the intent to interfere seriously a function of fundamental importance in society, as the executive authority, or cause serious fear in a population.
Basis:
Friday 22 July 2011 approx. at. 15.17 Grubbegaten in Oslo, after prior consideration and planning, he parked a VW Crafter van with registration number 99834 BR outside the entrance to the high-rise ministries, the offices including the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice.
Together, stayed there at least 250 people in high-rise building and the surrounding ministerial offices, and approx. 75 people in the streets in the immediate vicinity. In the car he had placed a bomb made of approx. 950 kg, consisting among others of fertilizer, diesel and aluminum.
He ignited a fuse with approx. seven minutes burn time, and then left the site on foot and on a previously deployed getaway car, a Fiat Duplo with registration VH 24605.
The bomb exploded at. 15.25.22 with tremendous firepower and shock wave in line with his intentions, and brought a large number of people who lived in the buildings of the Government buildings or on street level, in immediate danger, and caused massive property damage of the same buildings and surrounding buildings.
The explosion killed him following eight persons, all of which were caused extensive blast damage, thus:
The explosion killed him following eight persons, all of which were caused extensive blast damage, thus:
1. Jon Vegard Lervåg (32)
He found himself at the entrance to the high-rise.
2. Ida Marie Hill (34)
She was located at the entrance to the high-rise building and near the van.
3. Hanne Ekroll Løvlie (30)
She was off the entrance to the high-rise.
4. Annelise Holter (51)
She was in the reception area on the first floor of the high-rise.
5. Hanne Marie Orvik Endresen (61)
She was in the lobby on the first floor of the high-rise.
6. Kjersti Berg Sand (26)
She was in the reception area on the first floor of the high-rise.
7. Kai Hauge (32)
He was in Grubbegaten high-rise building at the entrance to the main entrance.
8. Tove Knutsen Åshill (56)
She was located near the fountain of Einar Gerhardsen place.
At the explosion, he tried also to kill a large number of people, including the others who were in high-rise building and the street level around it. He failed in his enterprise, but nine people were seriously injured physically, thus:
9. Male (61)
He was near the fountain of Einar Gerhardsen place.
10. Female (47)
She was located near the fountain of Einar Gerhardsen place.
11. Male (25)
He was in Grubbegaten by Einar Gerhardsen place.
12. Male (67)
He was on the fifth floor of the tower block, in an office at Grubbegaten.
13. Female (23)
She was in the lobby on the first floor of the high-rise.
14. Female (61)
She was in the seventh floor of the tower block.
15. Female (50)
She was in the eleventh floor of the high-rise.
16. Male (30)
He was the second floor of R4, in an office at Grubbegaten.
17. Male (55)
He was on Johan Nygaardsvold space between high-rise building and Akersgata.
Furthermore, at least another 200 people injured by the explosion, with varying damage assessment, including lacerations, fractures and hearing loss, a number of which were treated in hospital / emergency room or subjected to other medical treatment.
In addition, many of the above and other injured persons who were near the explosion, as well as survivors / relatives, had psychological after-effects of varying severity caused by what is described above.
Bomb explosion led to a number of government offices, including the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Justice and Police, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Health and Care Services, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Education could not be used, and the ministries were not able to attend and perform its duties as the executive authority until it was gone for some time.
The explosion and its effects also created serious fear in parts of the population.
II
Penal Code § 147a, first paragraph b, see § 233, first and second paragraphs of having committed a terrorist act, by violating Penal Code § 233 subsections (premeditated murder and there are particularly aggravating circumstances), with the intent to cause serious fear in a population.
Basis:
Friday 22 July 2011, after having dealt with as described in item I, he drove the getaway car for Hole municipality, where he knew that the organization Labour Youth (AUF) held its traditional summer camp at Utøya. There, there were 564 people. By pretending to be a police officer and wearing a uniform-like outfit, he was – among other things, brought a semiautomatic rifle, branded Ruger Mini 14 cal. 233 and a semiautomatic pistol branded Glock 9 mm – transported to Utøya on board the ferry M / S Thorbjorn, where he arrived about. at. 17.15.
Until he was arrested the same day approx. at. 18.35, he shot, after prior consideration and planning, with a rifle and / or gun at a number of people who found themselves on the island, in the water or aboard ships, including civilians who came to the rescue, and exposed them for instant death.
There was panic and fear of death in children, adolescents and adults during the shooting, reinforced by the fact that there were limited opportunities to flee or hide. While he was moving around all over the island he shot at people fleeing and / or hiding and / or which he brought out with information that the police had arrived.
He killed 69 people, of which 67 were struck by the fatal shot, fired with the described weapon. Two people died of injuries from falling and / or drowning while trying to get away without being hit by shots. The people were killed, thus:
1. Trond Berntsen (51)
He was the Information House and the pier.
2. Monica Elizabeth Bosei (45)
She was located between the Information House and the pier.
3. Rune Havdal (43)
He found himself between the information the House and Café building.
4. Hanne Anette Fjalestad Balch (43)
She was located outside the main entrance to the café building.
5. Snorre Haller (30)
He found himself outside the main entrance to the café building.
6. Rolf Christopher Johansen Perreau (25)
He found himself outside the main entrance to the café building.
7. Lejla Selaci (17)
She found herself in front of the Café building.
8. Steinar Jessen (16)
He was located near the outdoor stage at the Café building.
9. Birgitte Smetbak (15)
She was on the campsite at the Café building or inside the building.
10. Gunnar LINAK (23)
He was on the campsite southwest of Café building.
11. Margaret Boyum Clubs (16)
She was in the doorway between the hall and Lille Grand Hall of Café building.
12. Silje Merete Fjellbu (17)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
13. Guro Vartdal Håvoll (18)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
14. Ronja Sweet Johansen (17)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
15. Mona Abdinur, (18)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
16. Sondre Driving (17)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
17. Bendik Rosnæs Ellingsen (18)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
18. Eivind Hovden (15)
He was in the Great Hall of Café building.
19. Bergum Lene Maria (19)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.
20. Elisabeth Trønnes Lie (16)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.
21. Henrik André Pedersen (27)
He was in the Great Hall of Café building.
22. Ida Beathe Rogne (17)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.
23. Aleksander Aas Eriksen (16)
He was in the corridor in the Little Hall of the Café building.
24. Eva Kathinka Lütken (17)
She was on the Love Trail.
25. Tore Eikeland (21)
He was on the Love Trail.
26. Tarald Kuven Mjelde (18)
He was on the Love Trail.
27. Norwegian Life and Mary Johannesen (17)
She was on the Love Trail.
28. Monica Iselin Didriksen (18)
She was on the Love Trail.
29. Asta Sofie Dahl Helland (16)
She was on the Love Trail.
30. Anders Kristiansen (18)
He was on the Love Trail.
31. Bano Abobakar Rashid (18)
She was on the Love Trail.
32. Andreas Edvardsen (18)
He was on the Love Trail.
33. Silje Hagen Stamnes (18)
She was on the Love Trail.
34. Sondre Furseth Dale (17)
He was in the water between the slope below the trail and Love Naked ruins.
35. Simon Sæbø (18)
He was in the area at the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.
36. Modupe Ellen Awoyemi (15)
She was in the top of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.
37. Sharidyn Meegan Ngahiwi Svebakk-Bohn (14)
She was in the area at the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.
38. Marianne Sandvik (16)
She was in the area at the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.
39. Gizem Dogan (17)
She was in the woods east of School House.
40. John MUO (15)
He was in the woods east of School House.
41. Even Flugstad Malmedal (18)
He was in the water at the Proud Mountain.
42. Syvert Knudsen (17)
He found himself at Pride Mountain.
43. Synne Røyneland (18)
She was at the Pride Mountain, probably in the water / water edge.
44. Torjus Jakobsen Blatt Mann (17)
He was the Bolshevik.
45. Ingrid Berg Heggelund (18)
She was located by the Bolshevik.
46. Isabel Victoria Sogn Green (17)
She was located by the Bolshevik.
47. Guys Mustafa Qasim (19)
He was the Bolshevik.
48. Carina Borgund (18)
She was located by the Bolshevik.
49. Tina Sukuvara (18)
She was in the area at the Pump House.
50. Ruth Benedichte Vatndal Nilsen (15)
She was in the area at the Pump House.
51. Henrik Rasmussen (18)
He was in the area at the Pump House.
52. Espen Jørgensen (17)
He was in the area at the Pump House.
53. Porntip Ardam (21)
She was at the Pump House.
54. Thomas Margido Antonsen (16)
He found himself at the Pump House.
55. Ismail Haji Ahmed (19)
He found himself at the Pump House.
56. Fredrik Lund Schjetne (18)
He found himself at the Pump House.
57. Hanne Kristine Fridtun (19)
She was at the Pump House.
58. Emil Okkenhaug (15)
He found himself at the Pump House.
59. Havard-lived house (21)
He found himself at the Pump House.
60. Victoria Stenberg (17)
She was at the Pump House.
61. Sverre Fleet Bjørkavåg (28)
He was in the area at the Pump House.
62. Diderik Aamodt Olsen (19)
He was in the area at the Pump House.
63. Tame Liparteliani (23)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.
64. Kevin Berland Daae (15)
He was on the water’s edge on Sydspissen.
65. Karin Elena Holst (15)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.
66. Rafal Mohamad Jamil Jamil (20)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.
67. Andrine hills Espeland (16)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.
68. Earl Odegaard (17)
He fled the island by a swim, but died of drowning out Sydspissen.
69. Andrew Dalby Grønnesby (17)
He fled and fell off a cliff at the western tip of the island and into the water.
In addition to the above murder, he tried to kill a lot of people, but without success in his enterprise. During murder trials he shot and injured 33 people, thus:
70. Female (20)
She was on the tent.
71. Male (19)
He was on the tent.
72. Female (19)
She was on the tent.
73. Girl (16)
She was on the tent.
74. Girl (15)
She was on the tent.
75. Girl (16)
She was on the tent.
76. Girl (15)
She was on the tent.
77. Female (21)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
78. Girl (16)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
79. Boy (17)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
80. Male (19)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.
81. Female (21)
She was in the doorway between the hall and the corridor Lille in the Café building.
82. Male (19)
He was first in the Great Hall of Café building.
83. Female (19)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.
84. Girl (17)
She was on the Love Trail.
85. Girl (17)
She was on a rock ledge on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.
86. Boy (17)
He was in the water below Kjærlighetsstien.
87. Female (19)
She was located between the waterfront and the Love Trail.
88. Boy (17)
He was in the water under the Love Trail.
89. Girl (17)
She was located on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.
90. Girl (14)
She was located on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.
91. Girl (17)
She was on a rock ledge on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.
92. Male (19)
He found himself on a rock ledge on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.
93. Girl (16)
She was at the Pump House.
94. Male (20)
He found himself at the Pump House.
95. Male (20)
He found himself at the Pump House.
96. Boy (16)
He was near the western tip.
97. Boy (15)
He was near the western tip.
98. Male (21)
He was on Sydspissen.
99. Girl (16)
She was on Sydspissen.
100. Girl (17)
She was on Sydspissen.
101. Girl (17)
She was on Sydspissen.
102. Female (18)
She was on Sydspissen.
A number of the other people who stayed on Utøya received physical injuries fractures, cuts, etc.. in their attempts to save himself and others.
In addition, a significant number of people who were on the island, survivors / relatives and people who came to the aid of boats and otherwise, had psychological after-effects of varying severity caused by what is described above.
The actions of Utøya created serious fear in parts of the population.
***
The defendant has committed very serious crimes to an extent not previously experienced in our country in modern times.
In his own view is legitimate actions, and an obvious and apparent danger of a new serious crimes of the same nature is undoubtedly present.
Needs of public protection requires judgment on the transfer to compulsory mental health care, and the terms of Penal Code § 39 paragraph 1 is met.
Penal Code § 49 shall apply on appealing lens mail In Section 9-17 and post II, item 70 to 102
It will be closed claim forfeiture of three weapons (a semi-automatic rifle of the mark Ruger Mini 14 cal. 233, a semi-automatic pistol of the mark Glock 9 mm and a shotgun from Benelli brand) and associated ammunition.
Furthermore, it will be closed claim confiscation of objects used in the manufacture of the bomb as provided under the attractive post’s I, and clothing / equipment, etc.. used in the exercise of those in the mail I and II described actions.
Any claim for compensation / damages from the survivors and the victim will be made by counsel, see Criminal Procedure Law § 428 and § the same law 264 b, second paragraph.
How the case is presented in the indictment date there is no basis for claiming extraordinary punishment, Penal Code § 44 first paragraph.
Prosecutors take an express reservation that it is still at trial can be closed claims imprisonment or custody with the time frame of 21 years, based on the overall presentation of evidence in court, the defendant and the defense must prepare for. In that case, the Penal Code § 62 to apply.
The indictment is taken out after attorney general’s orders.
Oslo District Attorney’s Office, 5 March 2012
Svein Holden – Inga Bejer Engh…
Original article: Her er tiltalebeslutningen mot Anders Behring Breivik
_____
Google translation:
52 of the victims of Utøya died of gunshot to head
07.mar.2012
The deaths of 69 AUF-ers on Utøya in Hole municipality is part two of the comprehensive indictment against Behring Breivik.
For these conditions are Behring Breivik indicted for premeditated murder under particularly aggravating circumstances, with the intent to cause serious fear in a population.
The charges are detailed throughout all the killings that took place on Utøya, and explains the cause of death for the killing. In the indictment it emerges that 56 of the 69 victims were shot in the head, and 52 of these reported gunshot wounds to the head to be the direct cause of death.
67 were killed by the deadly shots, while two people died of injuries from falling and drowning.
564 people were on Utøya that day. He arrived Utøya approx. at 17.15 and had with him a Ruger Mini
14 cal. 233/2 automatic rifle and a Glock 9 mm semiautomatic pistol.
- It has been difficult
Prosecutors Inga duly Engh and Svein Holden thinks they have reached the best solution when it comes to charges against Breivik. See excerpts from the press conference.
“Until he was arrested the same day approx. at. 18.35, he shot, after prior consideration and planning, with a rifle and / or gun at a number of people who found themselves on the island, in the water or aboard ships, including civilians who came to the rescue, and exposed them to the immediate danger. ” , according to the indictment.
Several were killed after Behring Breivik said police had arrived and therefore cover more young people out of the caches.
“There was panic and fear of death in children, adolescents and adults during the shooting, reinforced by the fact that there were limited opportunities to flee or hide. While he was moving around all over the island he shot at people fleeing and / or hiding and / or which he brought out with information that the police had arrived. “
Aftenposten in this context chosen to anonymize the slain police officer except Trond Berntsen and general manager of Utøya, Monica Elizabeth Bosei. The information is based on the charges, and details of work description, injuries and cause of death, we have omitted.
The House Information
The officer Trond Berntsen, born 1960. Were between Information House and the pier when he was shot several times with the gun.
Monica Elizabeth Bosei, born 1966. General manager of Utøya, was located between the Information House and the pier when she was shot several times.
By and at the Café building
Male, born 1967. Was located between the information the House and Café building, was shot five times.
Female, born 1967. Was located outside the main entrance to the café building and was shot three times.
Male, born 1981. Was located outside the main entrance to the café building and was shot three times.
Male, born 1986. Was located outside the main entrance to the café building when he was shot three times.
Girl, born 1994. Found himself in front of the Café building when she was shot twice.
Boy, born 1995. Was located near the outdoor stage at the Café building when he was shot at least twice.
Girl, born 1996. Was on the campsite at the Café building or inside the building when she was shot twice.
Male, born 1988. Was on the campsite southwest of Café building, and was shot twice.
Girl, born 1995. Was in the doorway between Minor Hall and Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.
Girl, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot six times.
Female, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot at least three times.
Girl, born 1994. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot at least three times.
Girl, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot three times.
Boy, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot five times.
Boy, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot eight times.
Boy, born 1996. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.
Female, born 1992. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot at least three times.
Girl, born 1995. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.
Male, born 1984. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.
Girl, born 1993. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot at least twice.
Boy, born 1994. Were in the corridor within the Little Hall in Café building, and was shot six times.
The Love Trail
Girl, born 1994. Was on Love trail, and was shot twice.
Male, born 1990. Was on Love trail, and was shot once.
Male, born 1993. Was on Love trail, and was shot five times.
Female, born 1994. Was on Love trail, and was shot three times.
Female, born 1993. Was on Love trail, and was shot at least twice.
Female, born 1994. Was on Love trail, and was shot three times.
Male, born 1993. Was on Love trail and was shot twice.
Female, born 1992. Was on Love trail, and was shot twice.
Male, born 1992. Was on Love trail, and was shot three times.
Female, born 1993). Love was on the trail, and was shot twice.
Boy, born 1994. Was in the water between the slope below the trail and Love Naked headland, and was shot four times.
Male, born 1992. Were in the area of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot twice.
Girl, born 1995. Was located in the upper slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot four times.
Girl, born 1997. Were in the area of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot twice.
Girl, born 1995. Were in the area of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot at least once.
By Skolestua
Girl, born 1994. Was in the woods east of School House, and was shot twice.
Boy, born 1995. Was shot three times with the gun.
Proud Mountain
Male, born 1992. Was in the water and was shot once.
Boy, born 1993. Was shot three times.
Female, born 1993. Were probably in the water / water edge, and was shot three times.
Bolshevik
Boy, born 1993. Was shot once with the pistol or rifle.
Female, born 1992. Was shot three times-
Girl, born 1994. Was shot three times.
Male, born 1992. Was shot four times.
Female, born 1993. Was shot three times.
The Pump House
Female, born 1992. Was shot once.
Girl, born 1995. Was shot once with the pistol or rifle.
Male, born 1993. Was shot three times with the gun and / or rifle.
Male, born in 1994. Was shot at least three times with the gun and / or rifle.
Male, born 1990. Was shot three times with the gun and / or rifle.
Boy, born 1995. Shot twice with the gun and / or rifle.
Male, born 1991. Shot once.
Male, born 1992. Shot once.
Female, born 1991. Shot three times with the gun and / or rifle.
Boy, born 1995. Shot three times.
Male, born 1989. Shot four times.
Girl, born 1993. Shot three times with the pistol and rifle.
Male, born 1983. Shot twice.
Male, born 1992. Was in the area at the Pump House, the seashore or in the water. Was shot once with a pistol or rifle.
Sydspissen
Female, born 1988. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot twice with the gun and / or rifle.
Boy, born 1996. Was located on the waterfront. Was shot at least three times with the gun and / or rifle.
Girl, born 1995. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot once.
Girl, born 1991. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot at least once with the pistol or rifle.
Girl, born 1994. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot three times with the gun.
Boy, born 1994. Fled from the island by a swim, but died of drowning.
Western tip of
Boy, born 1994. Fell off a cliff into the water. Died of injuries from falling and / or drowning….
Original article: 52 av ofrene fra Utøya døde av skudd i hodet
_____
Google translation:
Breivik shot 56 of 69 victims in the head
07.mar.2012
Of the 69 who were killed on Utøya 22 July, 56 were shot in the head. The indictment against Anders Behring Breivik describes terror in all its cruelty…
Original article: Breivik skjøt 56 av 69 ofre i hodet
_____
Google translation:
Not mentioned in the indictment: “He tried to kill me”
07/03/12
More AUF higher disappointed by the omission
After swimming for their lives from Anders Behring Breivik’s bullets, it’s hard not to be part of the charges, says Bjorn Ihler (20) in Oslo AUF….
“All involved feel that part of the case, so it is important and appropriate to be part of the indictment. He tried to kill me too,” says Ihler to VG Nett….
A total of 119 persons mentioned by name in the indictment. These are all the 77 who lost their lives, and others who were hit by bullets or shrapnel from the bomb in the government building….
There were 889 people in danger during the attacks, 325 people near the bomb in Oslo and 564 people on Utøya when shooting began.
“Those who are not mentioned by name in the charge will still appear in person group descriptions in the trial,” says Holden….
Original article: Ikke nevnt i tiltalen: “Han prøvde å drepe meg også”
Streets around court building will be blocked off during Breivik trial
Norwegian Newspaper, Vårt Land, reports that, according to a letter sent out from the Norwegian Editors Association (Norsk Redaktørforening) to its members, city streets surrounding the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) in downtown Oslo will be blocked off to traffic during the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.
The association informed its members that the reason for this arrangement is to make space for broadcasting buses from international television stations.
The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) has previously stated that they are concerned about threats and violence in relation to the trial.
Google translation:
Closing streets in Oslo during the terror trial
02/18/12
140 newsrooms have so far expressed their interest to follow the trial of Behring Anders Breivik.
The streets around the Oslo Courthouse will be closed to make room for the buses from international TV stations that will transfer directly from the terrorism trial.
140 newsrooms have so far expressed their interest to follow the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo District Court. The case starts 16 April and is expected to last for ten weeks.
85 of editors are foreign – 55 are Norwegian. From the many TV stations that have expressed interest, there are reports that some 20 media buses will come….
Original article: Stenger gater i Oslo under terrorrettssaken
_____
Related post: PST fears threats and violence surrounding 7/22 court case
Related post: List of international news organizations that have requested accreditation for the 7/22 trial
Breivik’s defense lawyers will argue in court that he is accountable
Dagbladet writes that Anders Behring Breivik’s lawyers will argue in court that he was legally accountable when he carried out the 7/22 attacks. Up until now, Breivik’s defense attorneys had not publicly announced what argument they would make with regard to Breivik’s legal accountability.
“He is is firm on that he is accountable and clear on that he does not recognize himself in the description in the first [psychiatric] report. He is sure that the new psychiatrists will perceive him in a different way than the first. We have to put forth arguments [in court] in accordance to his wishes,” Lippestad, Breivik’s lawyer, said to Dagbladet.
Dagbladet also reports that, according to lawyer Tord Jordet, Breivik has set preconditions for partaking in a new series of psychiatric interviews: that the conversations be recorded and that the psychiatrists, Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, should read all his explanations given to the police, as well as his manifest, so that they have the necessary background information.
The first court appointed psychiatrists, Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, concluded that Breivik suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and that his political ideas are the result of psychosis. Breivik has, through his lawyers, stated that 80% of the conversations did not take place as described by the two psychiatrists.
Aftenposten writes that Asbjørn Rachlew, who has been leading the police questioning of Breivik, strongly encourages the two new court-appointed psychiatrists, Agnar Aspaas og Terje Tørrissen, to record the interviews.
“Listening and observation is an important part of the communication in an intverview or an interrogation. But to sit taking notes affects the listening [ability]. There is also no doubt that the one carrying out the questioning sharpens up when a recording that can be played off and analyzed afterwards, is being made,” Rachlew said to Aftensposten.
Lawyer, Tord Jordet, said to Verdens Gang (VG) that Breivik said he took arguments to their logical extreme when talking to the first court-appointed psychiatrists, and attempted to appear more extreme than he really is, and that he believes that this led to the psychiatrists’ conclusions.
According to Jordet, Breivik wished to say things that are extreme in order to move the threshold for what is perceived by society as extreme, so that what was previously considered radical would become moderate after his statements. “He says he has done this because he wished [to bring about] an ideologcal change in society,” Jordet said.
Google translation:
Would argue that Breivik be punished
17/02/2012
Anders Behring Breivik wants to convince the new psychiatrists that he is sane. His defenders will argue the same thing in court.
Breivik’s defenders have so far refused to say whether they will argue in court that the client is sane or insane.
But after Wednesday night became known that Breivik takes an about-face and still want to work with the two new psychiatric experts, and that he will fight for them to declare him as a sane, defenders will now argue the same thing in court.
This means that Breivik can be punished for crimes he did 22 July.
“He is certain that he is sane and clear that he did not recognize themselves in the first report’s descriptions. He is confident that the new psychiatrists will see him in another way than the first,” says defender Geir Lippestad to Dagbladet….
Original artle: Vil argumentere for at Breivik skal straffes
_____
Google translation:
Interrogation Chair calls for sound recordings
18.feb.2012
Asbjorn Rachlew has led the questioning of terror suspect Anders Behring Breivik. He calls the new law psychiatrists in the case strongly to document the conversations they have with Breivik.
“Listening and observation is an important part of communication in an interview or interrogation. But to sit and write is hard beyond listening. There is also no doubt that the person conducting the hearing, sharpens itself when taken recordings can be played back and analyzed afterwards,” said the police officer.
“Recording is a good tool for police and judicial system and will also be the right of psychiatrists,” he says….
Original article: Avhørsleder oppfordrer til lydopptak
_____
Google translation:
Breivik claims he fooled court psychiatrists
19/02/12
Appeared to be more extreme on purpose
Anders Breivik Behring claims that after 22 July has tried to appear more extreme and aggressive than he really is.
Now he says he will try to correct the impression when the new psychiatric expert to evaluate the accountability of his.
“He has said that many of the perspectives he has chosen is very ambitious and quite aggressive, and that he has put them on the tip. He believes it is this that has led to the conclusion of the first expert,” says Breivik defender Tord Jordet….
Original article: Breivik hevder han lurte rettspsykiaterne
_____
Related post: Court-appointed psychiatrists did not document Breivik interviews with voice or video recording
AUF and prosecutors do not wish broadcast of Breivik’s testimony
The Norwegian press filed a request last Decemeber with the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) asking the court to permit photography, video recording and broadcasting of the upcoming trial against Anders Behring Breivik, in order to ensure that the Norwegian public obtains the best possible insight into and control of the court’s handling of this important trial.
Since 1985, the freedom of the Norwegian press to report directly from the courtroom has been restricted, and photography and video recording is only allowed during the main court proceedings if, in the judge’s opinion, particular circumstances warrant it.
Before reaching a decision, the Oslo District Court has asked the parties involved for their views on the matter. On Tuesday, the court made the letters available to the public.
One of Brevik’s lawyers, Tord Jordet, had written that his client supports the request from the Norwegian press and wishes the trial against him to be as open as possible.
The State’s Attorneys and the Labor Youth Organization (AUF), however, disagree with the request of the press; in particular, they wish that Breivik’s testimony not be publically broadcast. Both the State’s Attorneys and the AUF also suggest that the recording of witness testimonies should be limited.
The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) writes that the Oslo District Court has previously indicated that the court will place emphasis on openness in this trial. “The starting point of the court is openess, but in most cases the media pressure is not as large as now. We have to consider using completely new ways of fulfilling the demand of openness,” magistrate Geir Engebretsen previously said to NRK.
Request from Norsk presseforbund (the Norwegian Press Association) and Norsk Redaktørforening (the Norwegian Editor Association) – in Norwegian [opens pdf].
Statement from lawyer Tord Jordet representing Breivik – in Norwegian [opens pdf].
Statement from State’s Attorneys, Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden – in Norwegian [opens pdf].
Statement from lawyer Frode Elgesem on behalf of AUF – in Norwegian [opens pdf].
Related article: Do not want Breivik-testimony on TV (Ønsker ikke Breivik-forklaring på TV)
Related article: Survivors want silence in Breivik case (Etterlatte vil ha taushet i Breivik-saken)
Court decides that regular co-judges be appointed in Breivik trial
The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) announced in a press release Thursday that it has decided that three regular co-judges (lekdommere) from Oslo will be appointed for the upcoming trial against Anders Behring Breivik.
In Norway, co-judges are elected by the commune or city council for a period of four years. A 2002 govermental review of the co-judge system (“‘Dømmes av likemenn’: Lekdommere i norske domstoler” – “‘Judged by peers’: Co-Judges in Norwegian Courts”) documented that co-judges are not representative of the population at large, and concluded that in most cases co-judges do not represent the accused’s peers. For example, almost half of all the co-judges held positions in political parties while serving as co-judges and only one-third of co-judges have never held a position in a political party. The assignment of a co-judge to a particular case is supposed to be decided randomly.
One of the plaintiff’s lawyers, Halldis Winje, requested in January that regular co-judges not be used, but instead suggested that the court appoint co-judges with professional expertise in psychiatry. The court rejected that proposal, pointing out that four court-appointed psychiatrists have already been appointed and will be present during the main trial proceedings.
The only time someone accused of a crime in Norway is entitled to a trial by jury (with regular citizens selected at random as members of the jury) is at the intermediate or appellate court level, the lagmannsrett.
The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) will decide next week who will act as co-judges in the Breivik trial.
Google translation:
Three common Oslo citizens shall be involved in judging Breivik
02/02/12
Next week will be withheld from the three persons to be lay judges in the trial of Behring Anders Breivik.
The Oslo District Court said in a statement Thursday afternoon….
Lay judges are elected, elected by the municipal or city council, and the term is four years. Courts Act stipulates certain requirements for who can be elected lay judges:
Among other things, you must be 21 years and under 70 years of age, be entitled to vote and be eligible for election to the council. You must be a Norwegian or Nordic citizen or have been introduced in the Norwegian Population Register as resident in Norway for the last three years. There is also a condition that you speak and understand Norwegian. Furthermore, there are requirements to lay judges obeying the law….
Original article: Tre vanlige Oslo-borgere skal være med på å dømme Breivik
2002 governmental review (in Norwegian): “Dømmes av likemenn” Lekdommere i norske domstoler
7/22 court case to be video streamed to eighteen district courts
Adresseavisen writes that the court case against Anders Behring Breivik will be video streamed to eighteen regional courts. Erling Moe of the Court Administration (Domstoladministrasjonen) told Addresseavisen that this will be done to make it easer for the many victims to follow the case. In December, 452 survivors and a further 276 supportive individuals had indicated to the Oslo District Court (Oslo Tingrett) that they wished to follow the court case.
The broadcast will be streamed to the folowing eighteen regional courts: Nord-Troms, Inntrøndelag (Steinkjer), Sør-Trøndelag, Sunnmøre, Bergen, Kristiansand, Nedre Telemark (Skien), Tønsberg, Drammen, Fredrikstad, Hedmarken, Salten (Bodø), Haugaland (Haugesund), Jæren, Nordmøre, Alta, Indre Finnmark and Ringerike.
Erling Moe also said to the paper that the Court Administration will record the entire court case and have a copy sent to the National Archives (Riksarkivet) as historical documentation.
Google translation:
Transfers terror case to 18 Courthouse
01/18/2012
The trial of accused terrorist Anders Behring Breivik be transferred to 18 regional courts around the country….
Original article: Overfører terrorsaken til 18 tinghus
PST fears threats and violence surrounding 7/22 court case
The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) held its annual press briefing yesterday. In their accompanying report, “Åpen trusselvurdering 2012″ (“Open Threat Evaluation 2012″), the PST says that their main concern, as in previous years, is extreme Islamist environments. In addition, the PST is concerned about violence from right-wing and anti-Islamic environments.
The head of the PST, Janne Kristiansen, said to Dagbladet that there has been a substantial increase in the number of threats towards officials following the 7/22 attacks, and that the PST is particularly concerned about threats surrounding the upcoming court case against Anders Behring Breivik.
Google translation:
Pst fear intimidation and violence surrounding the trial of Breivik
17.01.2012
PST presented today from its threat assessment for 2012.
According to PST is main concern, as in previous years, from extreme Islamist groups.
Meanwhile PST worried about violence and terrorism from the extreme right and anti-Islamic environments. They are particularly concerned about the threats people from such groups in connection with the upcoming trial of accused terrorist Anders Behring Breivik….
Original article: PST frykter trusler og vold rundt rettssaken mot Breivik
PST report: Åpen trusselvurdering 2012 (in Norwegian)
