The police violence case at Kongsberg: – The policeman convicted

The accused policeman is sentenced to 120 days in prison – the prosecutor’s claim was 60 days in prison. He must also pay Kevin Simensen NOK 30,000 in restitution and NOK 12,152 in compensation for expenses incurred. He must pay Kristian Teigen NOK 15,000 in compensation.

The judgment was delivered during the dissent. In the district court, the policeman was acquitted, also there under dissent.

Embossed

The main victim Kevin Simensen (27) is clearly affected immediately after the verdict is announced.

– Now I am very positively surprised. I’m a little shocked. It has been a topic for a year and a half now, so it is very nice that it has finally been taken seriously and looked at properly – that it came out of the district and was taken up in a proper way in Oslo. I am very relieved that the legal system actually works, he says to Dagbladet.

– I lost faith in it [rettssystemet] when he was acquitted first, but now we see that it works, he adds.

– What kind of expectations did you have when you woke up this morning?

– Of course I hoped for the best, but at the same time I was prepared to be disappointed again. But at the same time, I had faith that it would be taken seriously now.

– It was a lucky day, quite simply. Finally we were seen and heard and believed in – the court has realized that what was done was wrong, says fellow victim Kristian Teigen (27).

– What kind of expectations did you have before the verdict came?

– I suddenly became very uncertain based on the outcome last time. We were very nauseous and suddenly became very insecure inside. We didn’t even know what to believe.

Notifies appeal

The policeman has always denied criminal responsibility for the violence at Kongsberg on the night of 30 October 2022.

– My client is very disappointed with the verdict after he was acquitted in the district court, and we will appeal this verdict to the Supreme Court, says lawyer Heidi Reisvang at Elden Advokatfirma.

She has defended the policeman for 30 years together with John Christian Elden. They will now go through the judgment together with the client.

– If this judgment is upheld, it will set a scary precedent for future cases involving the police’s use of force, which I believe society is not served by, says Reisvang.

The prosecutor, Marit Oliver Storeng in the Bureau of Police Affairs, is satisfied with the outcome of the appeal case.

– The Court of Appeal has thorough premises for its result, and the Bureau is satisfied that the majority has essentially followed the assessment of evidence on which the indictment is based, Storeng told Dagbladet.

– Sentencing in this type of case is difficult because there is limited practice in the area. We note that the court has handed down a harsher sentence than what we claimed, she adds.

– Relief

Simensen and Teigen’s assistance lawyers, Sidra Bhatti and Ida Kolstad from Advokatfirmaet Rogstad, are “very satisfied” with the verdict.

– It is a relief, and it is a correct judgement, they say to Dagbladet.

– What kind of expectations did you have for the outcome here?

– We feel that it went better in the Court of Appeal, but you never know what the outcome will be. It has been a real relief, quite simply.

– What do you think of the reaction from the Court of Appeal?

– It only shows how serious the act was, and that they toughen the punishment reflects his act [politimannens]. It is important to get clarification on the area – on how far the police can go in their use of force.

Marius Dietrichson, until recently head of the Bar Association’s defense group, came out strongly against the district court’s acquittal of the policeman. After the Court of Appeal’s verdict, he remarks to Dagbladet:

– For the sake of everyone who is arrested by the police, this is a useful and necessary clarification.

Dietrichson recalled that Simensen was repeatedly beaten by the officer’s baton.

– It is not easy to understand, he said of the district court’s verdict.

– God help me

– Tougher society

Unn Alma Skatvold, head of the trade union Police’s Federation, says she will wait until a legally binding judgment is available before making in-depth comments. Nevertheless, she notes:

– It’s about looking after our members – both those who are directly involved in the case, and those out in the districts, she says to Dagbladet.

Skatvold registers what the policeman’s defenders say about the police and the use of force in the exercise of their duties.

– If the verdict is upheld, it may create discussion about daring to enter into tough assignments, and about safety. It is a timely debate; we have got a society that has become tougher, with violence and threats, also against police officers. We have to secure the tough everyday life for those who are in it, she says.

Denies guilt

At the beginning of April, the Borgarting Court of Appeal heard the appeal case against the police officer who was accused of gross violence and grossly negligent breach of duty after the much-publicized incident of violence at Kongsberg in October 2022. He has always denied guilt.

The policeman was – under dissent – acquitted on all counts in the Buskerud district court last summer. The majority of the court believed that the use of force appeared justifiable, compared to the “massive resistance” described by the police officer and his colleagues.

The judgment was appealed by the Attorney General, and now the judgment is available from the Borgarting Court of Appeal.

Here you can read everything about the police violence case.

Got to come back: No thanks

Asked for 60 days in jail

Prosecutor Marit Oliver Storeng at the Bureau of Police Affairs asked for 60 days in prison for the police officer – the same claim she made during the main hearing last year.

Storeng argued that the accused police officer went up the so-called pyramid of power too quickly, and that he should have tried other methods before choosing to use blows, both with a clenched fist and a baton.

– The police’s use of force must be necessary, proportionate and justifiable. The Bureau’s view is that the defendant goes beyond these limits to such an extent that the use of force is punishable, the prosecutor said in his closing proceedings and referred to the use of violence as “excessive and uncontrolled”.

The policeman’s defenders, Elden and Reisvang, for their part, asked for a full acquittal.

– The defendant has carried out a legal act of service. He has exercised power – as he should as an official. Dot. There is nothing more to talk about. It is a legitimate act of violence, said Elden in his closing proceedings.

– Chaotic

It was on the night of 30 October 2022 that the comrades Kevin Simensen and Kristian Teigen ended up in a fight with the police on their way home from the city in Kongsberg.

The violent incident was captured by a surveillance camera at a petrol station in the center of Kongsberg. The video, which was first published by Dagbladet, shows that the policeman repeatedly beats the two men – both with a tied hand and a telescopic baton.

Police witness: – Would have done the same myself

The accused policeman explained himself for several hours during the first day of the trial. Repetitive in the policeman’s explanation in the Court of Appeal was that he does not remember many details from the incident. He nevertheless defended his own use of violence – and claimed it was necessary to gain control of a “chaotic and very violent” situation where Simensen was aggressive.

– I don’t remember what happened, other than that there was fierce resistance that I haven’t experienced in a long time. I experience great resistance and that I am about to lose. I don’t feel like my colleagues are there to help me, which makes me fear getting hurt. I have to use the means of power I have available to gain control, he said from the witness box.

Asking for prison: – Excessive and uncontrolled

– Escalated quickly

Simensen also described a situation that “escalated extremely quickly”.

– It got so brutal so quickly. It all created a panic reaction in me – a survival instinct. There is no aggression there. There is panic, he said from the witness box during the second day of the trial.

When asked why he did not surrender earlier, he replied:

– It is the shock, the confusion and the frustration of not understanding what is happening. This extremely rapid escalation and rampant use of violence. It was an instinct.

During the appeal, several police witnesses gave evidence before the Court of Appeal. So did three expert witnesses, who explained about the arrest technique. The security guard and friends of the victims also explained how they experienced what unfolded outside the petrol station on the night in question.