ANNUAL REPORT 2 014 COPY LAYOUT PRINT PHOTOS The Norwegian Newmarketing AS PJ-trykk, Oslo Lars A. Lien Bureau for the Marte Garmann Investigation of Ruben Skarsvåg Police Affairs Anders Nordmeland Getty Images Politiforum iStock Photo Politihøgskolen

A police officer should view control and investigation of his activities as a natural part of his professional engagement. CONTENTS FOREWORD

Foreword 3 access by the accused. In its work on able for the first time to meet all of the the case, the Bureau has been criticised first-year students at the Police University 10 years since the Bureau was established 4 by lawyers and the media for imposing College. The Bureau held lectures for such radical measures. It has been students in Stavern, Oslo, Kongsvinger Approval of Overtime 10 pointed out that the Bureau uses “police and Bodø. In our view, it is important that methods”. The Bureau is an investigation police employees from the basic course Custody/Incidents involving Persons in Police Custody 11 agency, not a supervisory body. It is the onwards are aware of society’s need for Police Methodology and Methodological Development 14 responsibility of the Bureau to investigate control of the police’s use of its powers. and, when there are grounds for so doing, A police officer should view control Notification of Complaints 15 to prosecute employees of the police and investigation of his/her activities and prosecuting authority. In questions as a natural part of his/her professional “The police do not answer my enquiries” 16 regarding law enforcement, we act within engagement. the framework of the legislation adopted Misuse of Police Records 17 by the politicians and under the control The Bureau wishes to commemorate of the courts. Corruption constitutes a its tenth anniversary with a seminar in Assistance to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) 18 threat to the fundamental principles of our May 2015 drawing attention to a topic society. A suspicion found to be supported that has occupied a central place in Prevention of Torture 20 by evidence must be taken seriously, and many cases dealt with throughout the Investigation of Cases involving Shooting by Police 22 the facts of the case must be clarified period: the police’s use of police custody by means of an objective and effective and treatment of detainees by the Case Processing at Two Levels 26 investigation. It is difficult to envisage that, police. The purpose of the seminar is to in its investigations, the Bureau should bring experience to the fore within the Statistics for 2014 28 refrain from using methods provided by framework of learning and improvement. law. This would entail that the Bureau’s The Bureau has invited speakers to the Decisions to Prosecute in 2014 32 n this annual report, the Bureau has cases were not investigated as effectively seminar from the European Committee chosen to give some thought to the as other criminal cases. No-one would find for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the Court Cases in 2014 36 I fact that ten years have passed since that acceptable. Norwegian Bar Association and the superior Emergency Turn-outs in 2014 38 our establishment on 1 January 2005. We public prosecution authority among other review some of the major lessons learned In 2014, the demands placed by this institutions. International Cooperation in 2014 39 during this period. We also provide some corruption case on our investigation statistics for the whole period. resources had an adverse effect on the Jan Egil Presthus, Director of the Norwegian Administrative Assessments in 2014 40 execution of our remaining responsibilities. Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs In 2014, the Bureau applied a considerable The processing of other cases demanding The Bureau’s Organisation and Staffing 44 part of its resources to investigating investigative resources has been somewhat information provided by a convicted delayed. The statistics for 2014 must be Jan Egil Presthus, The Bureau’s Management Group 45 criminal alleging that a police officer had viewed in this light. Director of the Norwegian Bureau for the Persons on Assignment 45 acted corruptly. During the initial phase Investigation of Police Affairs of the investigation, the police officer was An important task for the Bureau is to

241 651 Brief Notes on some Bureau Employees 46 remanded in custody and held in isolation. contribute to police training by means During the investigation, certain documents of lectures and other dissemination of Articles from Previous Annual Reports 47 have been classified and excepted from information. In spring 2014, the Bureau was Trykksak 4 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 5 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 1500

1200

900

600

300

10 YEARS SINCE 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 THE BUREAU WAS

NUMBER OF DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE ESTABLISHED 120

100

80 CASE PROCESSING, ORGANISATION of regard both for clarification of the case processing on two levels and reasoned AND EFFICIENCY and for the parties to the case. Partly as a decisions. This has also been raised in the 60 Like its predecessor, SEFO, the Bureau result of evaluation of the Bureau during Bureau’s dialogue with the Ministry and has been criticised for the proportion the 10-year period (NOU 2009:12), the the Director of Public Prosecutions. Out of unprosecuted cases. Each year, the number of posts has been increased. The of regard for quality requirements and 40 On 1 January 2015, it Bureau has considered approximately Bureau currently has a permanent staff of confidence in the work of the Bureau, it 1200 complaints, but the proportion of 36 persons, and has in addition 11 persons has been agreed that the Bureau’s work 20 was ten years since the complaints resulting in penalties is low, engaged on assignment. In accordance routines should not be simplified. establishment of the Bureau. between 3% and 8%. It is particularly the with stipulations, the Bureau has a two-level 0 large proportion of unprosecuted cases organisation. In 2014, the Bureau considered a number 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 This provides an opportunity rather than the individual cases themselves of cases that can be viewed as particularly that has been used as a basis for criticising All cases are dealt with on two levels, labour-intensive. In view of this and the to sum up experience from the Bureau’s decisions. During the ten by the investigation divisions and by failure of the Bureau over time to meet our own activities and the years, few individual decisions have been the Director. The Bureau has developed its targets, the Director of the Bureau subjected to broad debate. Comparisons routines involving thorough documentation considers that a certain strengthening of AVERAGE CASE PROCESSING TIME IN CASES DECIDED agencies that the Bureau is that the Bureau has made with the other of assessment of evidence and legal the core staff may be called for. 300 responsible for investigating. Nordic countries’ units with partially the assessments in recommendations and same mandate, show considerable decisions. In all cases prosecuted, a Within the framework of the current rules, similarity in the proportion of cases resulting reasoned prosecution decision is provided the Bureau has attached importance to 250 in penalties. in writing. Of course, the organisation and transparency with regard to cases and the requirements regarding reasoned work. The Bureau currently publishes brief 200 During certain periods, the Bureau’s case decisions, etc. have an effect on the speed summaries of all decisions on its website. processing time has been excessive both in with which cases can be dealt with. Among Decisions in cases of general interest are 150 relation to stated targets and in relation to others, local trade unions have advocated published in their entirety in anonymised what has been regarded as desirable out relaxation of the requirements regarding form. 100

50

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 6 Director of the Norwegian Bureau THE BUREAU’S CASES WHERE POLICE EMPLOYEES IN ADDITION TO OTHER 7 for the Investigation of Police Affairs PENALTIES, OR AS THE SOLE PENALTY, HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF THEIR Annual Report POSITIONS (SEE SECTION 29 OF THE PENAL CODE (2005–2014)). 2014 1. Forged diploma from the Norwegian Police University College (section 182 11. Sexually offensive behaviour (sections 201b, 124, 325 (1), etc. of the Penal of the Penal Code) (2005) Newly graduated from the Norwegian Police Code)(2008) Police Chief Inspector – man (37) – 45 days suspended University College – man (25) – 45 days suspended sentence sentence 2. Serious breaches of confidentiality (sections 121 and 325 (5) of the 12. Theft of drugs, etc.(sections 162, 127, 256, 204a. of the Penal Code) (2009) Penal Code) (2006) Police Chief Inspector – man (37) – 30 days Police Chief Inspector – man (41) – 6 months unconditional sentence suspended sentence 13. Repeated breaches of duty of confidentiality vis-à-vis media (section 121 of 3. Theft of passport, etc. (section 258, etc., section 47 of the Immigration Act) the Penal Code) (2009) Police Chief Inspector – man (56) – 90 days (60 days (2006) Police Chief Inspector – man (52) – 2 years unconditional sentence suspended sentence) 4. Embezzlement, etc. (sections 121, 255, 325 (5), etc. of the Penal Code) 14. Threats, witness tampering, etc. (sections 132a, 227, 325 (5) of the Penal (2006)* Police officer – woman (28) – fine NOK 10 000 Code) (2010) Police officer – man (31) – 90 days suspended sentence Cases and case areas 5. Drug abuse, etc. (sections 121, 258 of the Act relating to medicinal products, 15. Gross corruption, etc. (section 276b of the Penal Code) (2010) Police etc.) (2008) Police Chief Inspector – man (49) – 2 years unconditional Chief Inspector – man (52) – 1 year and 6 months unconditional sentence sentence (Norwegian Supreme Court Reports for 2011, page 477.) 6. Serious breaches of confidentiality (section 121 second paragraph of the 16. Gross corruption, etc. (section 276b of the Penal Code) (2010) Police Chief Penal Code) (2007)* Custody Officer (temporary) – man (19) Inspector – man (57) – 2 years unconditional sentence – fine NOK 10 000 17. Gross corruption, etc. (section 276b of the Penal Code) (2011) Police officer 7. Theft from a person in need of help, etc. (section 258, etc. of the Penal Code) – man (54) – 8 months unconditional sentence (Supreme Court judgment (2007) Police officer – man (31) – 36 days unconditional sentence HR-2011-2143A) 8. Theft/embezzlement of drugs, drug abuse (section 162, etc. of the Penal 18. Misuse of position (section 193, etc. of the Penal Code) (2011) Police Chief 10 YEARS SINCE Code) (2007) Police officer – man (47) – 60 days unconditional sentence Inspector – man (54) – 1 year and 3 months unconditional sentence 9. Gross corruption (section 276b, etc. of the Penal Code) (2008) Police officer 19. Misuse of position (section 193, etc. of the Penal Code) (2011) Police officer – man (51) – sole penalty – man (45) – 2 years unconditional sentence 10. Threats against colleagues (section 227, etc. of the Penal Code) (2008) 20. Violation of section 118 of the Penal Code (2013) Police Superintendent THE BUREAU WAS Police Chief Inspector – man (44) – 45 days unconditional sentence – man (57) – sole penalty ESTABLISHED * Time limit 5 years

THE OBIORA CASE drop the case was upheld by the Director entered into a settlement with the state of been thoroughly investigated by the Half of the cases concerning use of force such cases are dealt with by the courts. Eugene Obiora died of suffocation when, of Public Prosecutions in December 2007. their compensation claim. The bereaved Bureau. prosecuted by the Bureau during the last During the ten-year period, a number of in September 2006, he was arrested by relatives later brought a claim before the 10 years have resulted in acquittals. It cases concerning use of force have been the police at a public service office in In its decision in the Obiora case, the European Court of Human Rights. They It has been established that, during the is difficult on the basis of legislation and tried by the Supreme Court. The decision Trondheim. The Bureau’s decision to Bureau pointed out that the police claimed that article 2 of the ECHR (Right to period from 2005 to 2015, the professional case law to define any clear and general regarded as being of greatest interest is drop the case against the officers who authorities of other countries, including life) had been violated since Norwegian skills involved in police arrest techniques limits for the right of the police to use that published in the Norwegian Supreme intervened against Obiora, resulted in the Danish police, owing to several similar authorities had not ensured sufficient underwent considerable development. In force without being liable to penalties. Court Reports for 2007, page 1172. The strong reactions and public debate. On incidents, had a better knowledge than training in the police regarding the risk this work, a significant role was played by On the basis of section 6 of the Police case concerned use of force in the arrest the basis of expert assessments, the Bureau the Norwegian police of the dangers associated with use of the prone position experience of the Obiora case and other Act and section 48 of the Penal Code, a of a driver who refused to stop for the found that shortage of oxygen came associated with the prone position. as an arrest technique. It was moreover cases dealt with by the Bureau. specific discretionary assessment must be police. about as a result of breathing difficulty or Reference was also made to the fact submitted that article 14 (Prohibition of made in each case regarding whether pressure against the neck, Obiora’s own that, prior to this incident, descriptions discrimination) cf. article 2 had been COURT CASES CONCERNING USE OF FORCE the use of force was necessary, justifiable ARREST efforts to resist arrest, the placement in of the death by suffocation of agitated violated on the basis that the Norwegian In 2011, the Bureau indicted an officer and proportional, or whether, in the From 2006 to 2014, the Bureau imposed the prone position over time and the fact and struggling persons had been given authorities had not protected Obiora from in Telemark police district for applying circumstances, it can be deemed to have corporate penalties on police districts on that the police’s use of force in holding in the literature of emergency medicine police racism. pressure to an arrested person while he been “absolutely unwarranted”. In cases 18 occasions (see section 48a of the Penal him down and keeping him still resulted and forensic medicine. In 2010, the was lying on the ground in the prone resulting in acquittals, the courts have Code). Corporate penalties were imposed in pressure against a hard surface. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticised the In 2011, the European Court of Human position handcuffed behind his back. The found the police to have a wider margin of when several persons independently made Bureau’s assessment was that there was no Norwegian authorities for the police’s lack Rights rejected the appeal, observing that person suffered respiratory failure and impunity than was adopted by the Bureau errors, while their acts were not in isolation evidence that the officers who intervened of knowledge of the danger of loss of life the appellant, by bringing a civil action cardiac arrest, resulting in brain damage. in its prosecution assessment of the case. found to be subject to penalty. against Obiora had acted negligently associated with the prone position. The against the state for compensation, had The officer was convicted by the district This applies to assessments both of the in relation to the fatal injury or that they Parliamentary Ombudsman’s assessment made use of the available national judicial court and subsequently acquitted by the necessity of the intervention and of the Of the 18 corporate penalties, 11 were had shown gross lack of judgment in the was that the Norwegian authorities had not remedies, and the subsequent settlement Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal manner in which force was used. associated with the use of police custody. course of duty. In the Bureau’s assessment, complied sufficiently with their convention entailed forfeit of further use of these found that the officer’s pressure against In the view of the Bureau, the police may there was no evidence that the treatment obligations with regard to the use of remedies. The court also called attention to the arrested person had only lasted for a Professional and lay judges can be said in some situations have a too perfunctory of Obiora was motivated by racism. The the prone position in connection with the fact that the national police authorities few seconds, and found this to lie within to show considerable understanding for approach to the use of custody. This investigation showed that the Norwegian arrests. According to the Parliamentary had now changed the training scheme the officer’s margin of impunity. Nor did the the difficulties that may be involved in applies to assessments of necessity, police lacked knowledge of dangers as­ Ombudsman, the necessary knowledge in order to prevent similar tragic incidents Court of Appeal find that it could exclude police assessments associated with use of justifiability and proportionality. In some of sociated with placing an arrested person in could have been obtained without from occurring in the future. It was also the possibility that the respiratory failure force. The Bureau has never criticised the the cases that have resulted in penalties, the prone position handcuffed behind his expending considerable resources. pointed out that the appellant had in no and cardiac arrest had occurred for other decisions of the courts, but has pointed the police have quite simply not had the back. Following an appeal by the relatives way enlarged on the appeal concerning reasons than the pressure applied by the out that those inclined to comment on this necessary control of the custody, which of the deceased, the Bureau’s decision to In 2010, Obiora’s bereaved relatives discrimination, and that the matter had officer. type of case should also be aware of how has resulted in excessive duration and 8 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 9 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

OFFENCES RESULTING IN PENALTIES 2005–2014 CORPORATE PENALTIES: 2005–2014 Section 48a, first paragraph unauthorised custody. Custody is a very delay bringing a person before the court clearly demonstrates the extremely (counts in indictments and fines) of the Penal Code: When a penal provision is contravened by a invasive measure, and all assessments and until three days had elapsed. In the view of hazardous nature of vehicle pursuit. In person who has acted on behalf of an enterprise, the enterprise acts associated with the legal basis, need the Bureau, it is important that the Ministry addition to the risk to involved vehicles, may be liable to a penalty. This applies even if no individual person may be punished for the contravention. and duration must be of high quality. now completes its work on the subsequent the method involves risk for other road control of extension of the time limit. The users and persons along the road. One of Type of offence Number Percentage 1. Asker and Bærum police district From 2005 to 2014, 12 persons lost their deadline for comments was 1 March 2011. the 12 persons killed was a female cyclist Fraud 13 2% Unlawful deprivation of liberty, (section 226 of the Penal Code) (2006) lives in Norway in connection with police who died after being hit by a drunken Breach of confidentiality 70 11% 2. Østfold police district custody. In three cases, the incidents The Bureau’s cases give an impression car driver who was being pursued by the Violation of official duties 26 4% Seized money missing, NOK 250 000, (section 325 (1) of the Penal resulted in penalties. The causes of that police managers have paid too little police. In many situations, the suspected Breach of the Immigration Act 3 0% Code) (2006) death varied. In some cases, it is clear attention to questions concerning the use offences that give rise to vehicle pursuit Forgery 5 1% 3. Telemark police district that the police were not quick enough of police custody. When in 2013 the Bureau are not among the most serious. In view False testimony 8 1% Inadequate follow-up of firearms case (section 325 (1) of the Penal in registering symptoms of poisoning investigated the practice of handcuffing of the extent of injuries, the Bureau urges Custody 1 0% Code) (2007) or sickness. Symptoms of sickness were detainees to rings fastened to the cell wall the police to be constantly attentive when Gross lack of judgment in the 4. Vestfold police district also sometimes wrongly perceived as of the custody facility in Søndre Buskerud practising the method, and to consider the course of duty 124 20% Unlawful deprivation of liberty, (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) Corruption 24 4% (2009) the effects of substance use. Police of­ police district, the investigation showed need for amendments to guidelines and Bodily harm 19 3% 5. Telemark police district ficers and custody officers lack medical that four cells in Drammen were equipped routines. Human trafficking 1 0% Breach of confidentiality, (sections 121 and 325 of the Penal Code) expertise. However, experience shows that with such rings. The management of the Misuse of position 18 3% (2009) examination and clearance by a doctor police district was unacquainted with OTHER CASES Obstructing police investigations 1 0% 6. Vestfinnmark police district prior to placement in police custody does the practice, and the Norwegian Police During the 10 years of the Bureau’s exis­ Drug offence 32 5% Slow case processing, (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) (2009) not guarantee that the custody does not Directorate’s police custody inspection tence, 196 police employees have been Sexual offence 41 7% 7. Midtre Hålogaland police district involve risk. In a number of cases, questions body had not noticed the rings or posed indicted, had their cases adjudicated Damage to property 4 1% Censurable conduct of search, (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) have been raised regarding whether questions that could have revealed such following a summary judgment on con­ Customs Act 8 1% (2009) supervision of detainees has been carried a practice. Custody is among the most fession or been given the option of a fine Traffic offence 113 18% 8. Søndre Buskerud police district out in accordance with the requirements invasive measures at the disposition of by the Bureau. In 15 cases, a waiver of Threats 4 1% Censurable supervision of detainee, (section 325 (1) of the Penal Theft 20 3% Code) (2009) that follow from rules and guidelines. the police. It is of paramount importance prosecution has been issued. In 20 cases, Careless handling of a firearm 3 0% 9. Sør-Trøndelag police district Pursuant to section 2-5 of the regulations that a competent and committed police police employees have been deprived of Unlawful deprivation of liberty 1 0% Unlawful deprivation of liberty, (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) concerning police custody, the police shall management is attentive to the need to their positions by court judgment. Embezzlement 25 4% (2010) in connection with supervision “reassure show regard for detainees and their rights. False statement in the course of duty 1 0% 10. Hedmark police district themselves of the detainee’s situation”. Cases resulting in deprivation of position Immigration Act 3 0% Censurable custody conditions (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s National have included cases concerning gross Firearms Act 43 7% (2011) In a ten-year retrospective view, it is natural Preventive Mechanism against Torture and corruption, sexual offences, misuse of Other 14 2% 11. Oslo police district to call attention to the problems involved Inhuman Treatment became operational position, embezzlement and drug use. Total 625 Unlawful deprivation of liberty (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) in the shortage of remand custody places. in 2014. The unit has already visited several Although critics of the Bureau’s work (2011) It is disheartening to read the police’s custody facilities and reported findings often voice the opinion that more people 12. Søndre Buskerud police district Unlawful deprivation of liberty (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) own statistics on custody duration and and recommendations. The Prevention should have been punished, it must be (2012) failure to comply with the rule concerning Mechanism has access to the Bureau’s regarded as reasonable to characterise 13. Søndre Buskerud police district transfer from police custody to prison cases. the number of cases and penal reactions, Censurable supervision of detainee – naked in cell (section 325 (1) within 48 hours. Although, in its assessment viewed in relation to society’s expectations of the Penal Code) (2012) of specific cases, the Bureau has not found VEHICLE PURSUIT to the police service, as both sufficient 14. National Police Immigration Service grounds to impose penalties, the situation The Bureau’s cases show that, from 2005 and sufficiently serious. The Bureau has Breach of Working Environment Act – fire safety, inadequate could be characterised as untenable. In to 2014, twelve persons lost their lives in stated that a number of the offences training (2012) 2013, there were in Norway 4 250 cases connection with vehicle pursuits by the could have been avoided if police 15. Romerike police district where detainees were held in excess of police. Twenty persons were seriously managers had been more attentive in Censurable circumstances regarding search of residence, etc. the maximum custody period. It is assumed injured. (Incidents involving little or no exercising management. In several of the (section 325 (1) of the Penal Code) (2013) 16. Oslo police district that the new guidelines from the Director injuries to persons have been excepted). most serious cases, it is clear that many Censurable circumstances in connection with the execution of of Public Prosecutions laid down in the Vehicle pursuit is a lawful and regulated people have observed danger signals that a sentence (section 325 of the Penal Code) (2013) circular of 4 July 2014 have made some police method. The Bureau has based its should have been reacted to. The police 17. Oslo police district improvement to the situation. assessment of potential criminal liability in have important tasks, and perform their Inadequate routines for use of photo records (section 325 of the connection with vehicle pursuits on current responsibilities on behalf of society and the Penal Code) (2013) Several cases considered by the Bureau guidelines laid down in instructions issued general public. The content and serious 18. Søndre Buskerud police district give reason to question whether the by the Norwegian Police Directorate. nature of these responsibilities entails Handcuffing to cell wall of detainees in danger of self-injury police comply with the intentions of the No cases where lives have been lost in strict requirements regarding managers. (section 325 of the Penal Code) (2013) amendment of the time limit for applying connection with vehicle pursuits have In the view of the Bureau, there is room for remand provided in section 183 of the resulted in penal reactions following pro­ for improvement in police managers’ Criminal Procedure Act. In 2006, the time cessing by the Bureau or the Director of intervention against employees whom limit for bringing arrested persons before Public Prosecutions. In some cases, critical one does not fully trust to behave in the court was extended to three days. In questions have been asked regarding the accordance with the requirements and making this amendment, it was assumed assessment of the need for vehicle pursuit. ideals of the service. that the police would only exceptionally The number of dead and seriously injured 10 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 11 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

APPROVAL CUSTODY/ OF INCIDENTS IN OVERTIME POLICE CUSTODY

everal police agencies, have concerning the location of the reported he Bureau has considered a number the likelihood that the case will be so repor­ted employees to the Bureau employee at the time for which overtime of cases where the time limits for thoroughly investigated during the period Sfor fraud in connection with claims pay had been claimed. Tdetention prior to a remand hearing that the charged person is detained that for overtime pay. The employer has have not been complied with. There are there will be no need for remand. It is found grounds to suspect an employee In one of the cases, a person was separate time limits for transfer from police further stated that the main rule will still Cases where the employer of claiming overtime pay without recently indicted. In the view of the Each year, the Bureau con- custody to prison and for detention prior be that the charged person is to appear suspects that an employee having worked overtime. One of the Bureau, there is evidence that the siders a number of cases to a remand hearing. The arrested person in court as soon as possible, and that it cases concerned an employee who indicted person was not in the office must be transferred from police custody will only exceptionally be appropriate to has claimed pay for had been given consent to perform a during the period for which overtime concerning police custody. to a remand custody cell within 48 hours wait until the time limit expires. The length considerable amount of work at home. pay had been claimed. Nor is there an from the time of arrest unless for practical of the period prior to an application for overtime that has not been Another case concerned an employee evidence that, at the times stated, he In connection with cases reasons this is not possible (see section remand will depend on the circumstances carried out. who had relatively extensive authority used the police systems as a necessary in 2014, we have chosen to 3-1 of the regulations concerning police of the individual case, among others, to work overtime at the office during and natural part of his work task. custody). If the prosecuting authority wishes the seriousness of the offence and the week­ends. Common to these cases focus here on the length of to detain the arrested person, he or she complexity and length of the investigation. was that the reports included overtime In the view of the Bureau the cases may must as soon as possible, and on the third that had been approved and where serve as a reminder of the importance custody (including failu- day following arrest at the latest, appear The Director of Public Prosecutions’ circular payment had been claimed. In both that the employer has sound routines re to comply with the time before the district court with an application 4/2006 states that the chief of police and cases, suspicion had been aroused by a for control of the use and approval of that he/she be remanded in custody (see the responsible police lawyer have special number of claims for overtime pay over overtime. limit for detention prior to section 183, first paragraph, of the Criminal responsibility for ensuring that remand a long period. a remand hearing) as well Procedure Act. custody and the use of police custody in connection with investigation are used in The Bureau’s investigation of the cases as the use of handcuffs in The three-day time limit for detention compliance with the circular. The Director consisted of clarifying whether the prior to a remand hearing laid down of Public Prosecutions further specifies reported employees had actually police custody and the ser- in section 183, first paragraph, of the that the prosecuting authority must make worked at the times for which overtime vice during police custody of Criminal Procedure Act was provided in active and targeted efforts to ensure that pay had been claimed. Among other order to reduce the need for remand in the conditions of the travaux préparatoires measures, attempts were made to writs prescribing fines. custody and the total length of the time are met, and that the extended time limit is detect electronic traces that could spent in custody by charged persons only used when necessary out of regard for prove or disprove that work had during an investigation. It is assumed in an effective investigation. been performed as well as electronic the travaux préparatoires to this provision traces that could provide information that the three-day time limit will increase 12 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 13 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

Continued

CUSTODY/ From time to time, the Bureau receives complaints alleging that detainees have been forced to accept fines while they are INCIDENTS IN still in police custody. POLICE CUSTODY

In 2014, the Bureau considered a case The impression from the Bureau’s inves­ also be given to whether the specific use The Bureau doubted the necessity and use handcuffs, the factors justifying the wait to be examined by an investigator. where a man had been arrested and tigation was that the overall control of is necessary, proportional and justifiable justifiability of the use of handcuffs in the placement of the handcuffs and the When informed that it could take up to taken into police custody because he was the time limit provided in section 183, first (see section 6 of the Police Act). The cell. It was not clear whether alternative specific supervisory routines implemented in three hours before he was examined, he found to be storing drugs and had a history paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Act threshold for use of handcuffs, including courses of action had been considered, order to limit the nature and duration of the accepted the fine in order to be released of substance abuse and economic crime. was inadequate. Since the maximum time the interpretation of the assessment of such as laying the man on a mattress or intervention. The documentation must also from the custody facility. On the day of the man’s arrest, a search limit had been complied with, no grounds need, must be assessed differently where requesting the participation of more officers state explicitly who made the decision. The was made of his home, and two days later were found for considering criminal liability handcuffs are used on a person locked in removal of the handcuffs. Reference was Bureau concluded that the conduct of the In this case, the Bureau did not find it he was examined again. After three days, for gross lack of judgment in the course in a cell than where handcuffs are used also made to the fact that the man was officers did not qualify as censurable, and proven that the man had been threatened he was remanded in custody, and was of duty. However, the case was sent to during arrest and transport. In a cell, the handcuffed behind his back, and that he dropped the case on the ground that no into accepting the fine, and the case was transferred to remand custody six days the chief of police for administrative arrested person is isolated and prevented remained handcuffed for several hours. The criminal offence was deemed proven. dropped on the ground that no criminal after being arrested. The Bureau found assessment. from violence towards persons other than use of force was deemed as a whole to offence was deemed proven. Nor has the that there had been no reason to wait until himself. be extensive. The Bureau found that it was, From time to time, the Bureau receives Bureau previously concluded criminal liabi- three days after making the arrest before In 2014, the Bureau also considered a case formally speaking, the duty officer who complaints alleging that detainees were lity in cases concerning service of writs pres- applying for remand in custody. Sufficiently where the police had decided to place a The Bureau found that the decision that the decided that the man was to be placed forced to accept fines or that attempts cribing fines in police custody, but holds the thorough investigations of the case had man in a cell while handcuffed. The man man was to remain handcuffed after being in a cell while handcuffed behind his were made to pressure them into doing view that the police should show caution in already been made on the day of the had disturbed the police’s arrest of an placed in the cell was based on a fear that back and when the handcuffs were to be so while they were still in police custody. carrying out such practice. This is particular- arrest, and it seems to have been clear acquaintance of his, and had failed to he would behave violently on removal of removed. This was in accordance with the In a case from 2014, a person was taken ly applicable if the alternative to accepting at an early stage that an application for comply with an order to remove himself. the handcuffs and/or a fear that he would police district’s instructions for use of police into custody for failing to comply with a the fine is continued custody pending an remand in custody was highly appropriate. Pursuant to section 9, first paragraph, of the behave violently when police officers later custody. Furthermore, the decision and its police order to remove himself from a pub examination. In such situations, the detai- The principal reason for not applying for Police Act, he was taken to the custody visited him in the cell. The Bureau observed execution were not documented otherwise and owing to his behaviour in the police nee may easily feel pressured into accep- remand in custody earlier was that the facility because, owing to intoxication, he that the grounds for taking the man to than by noting in the duty log that the car. In accordance with section 9 of the ting a fine. Moreover, the ­detainee may police lawyer had been occupied with had disturbed the public peace and order, the police station and the man’s verbal patrol had notified that the man was to be Police Act, it was decided to take him into thus be deprived of the ­opportunity for other work. The Bureau stated that regard accosted others or caused danger to reactions to the police officers did not placed in the cell while handcuffed. In the custody on grounds of intoxication and necessary consideration and ­assessment of for the arrested person must have highest himself or others. in themselves differ from other situations view of the Bureau, the documentation disturbance of public peace and order. the fine, both because the detainee’s view priority, and that, if the responsible lawyer regularly faced by the police. The decision associated with the intervention was According to the man, he was removed regarding the fine might be influenced by does not have the capacity to make The Bureau stated that the decision concerning use of handcuffs was found inadequate. It stated the use of handcuffs from the cell the following morning and his desire to be released from custody and the necessary applications for remand regarding whether the use of handcuffs is to be due to the fact that the man was in police custody to be a use of force served a writ prescribing an optional because, at such a point in time, the detai- in custody, their superior officer must be lawful is not only dependent on whether aggressive and unpredictable, and that of such an invasive character that clear fine. He told the police that he would not nee’s state of mind might be such that his notified so that this work can be transferred the conditions of section 3-2 of the Police he had previously shown violence towards documentation must be provided con­ accept the fine, and was informed that judgment is somewhat weakened. to another lawyer. Instructions are met. Consideration must police officers. cerning the basis for the decision to he would have to return to the cell and 14 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 15 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014 NOTIFICATION OF COMPLAINTS

rom time to time, the Bureau is asked by officers why the Bureau Fdid not notify them that they had been reported. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Prosecution Instructions concerning reports of offences, investigation and the rights, right of appeal, etc. POLICE METHO­ of suspects and charged persons apply correspondingly to the Bureau’s handling of criminal cases. The rules DOLOGY AND are thus the same whether it is a police officer who has been reported or an “ordinary citizen”.

METHODOLOGICAL The Bureau generally receives a complaint directly from the complainant or forwarded from the police district. The Bureau registers the complaint DEVELOPMENT and sends written confirmation of the registration to the complainant. There is no corresponding legal provision number of cases considered by the The officers told that they had proceeded College. Officers had been told that they and to ensure that routine operations/ stipulating that the person reported shall Bureau have raised the question of as described, among other reasons, in must find their own solutions. The officers situations are dealt with in a lawful be notified that he has been reported. Awhether a specific type of method order prevent the suspect from harming otherwise pointed out that the use of the manner. Officers requesting clarification or procedure used by the police can be himself. The Bureau’s assessment was that baton in the oral cavity was not something concerning procedures and methodology The Bureau initiates investigations when, deemed lawful, either in general or in the procedure adopted by the police, they had thought up themselves, but had must be taken seriously and provided with as a result of a complaint or other cir- The Bureau understands relation to the specific situation in which it is which involved examining the oral cavity, been common practice among officers guidance. cumstances, there are reasonable gro- that the police cannot have used. These cases also involve the question must be deemed a physical examination in the police district for many years. One unds to investigate whether a criminal of how the method was developed and (see section 157 of the Criminal Procedure of the officers told that he had become offence has been committed. Investi- guidelines for dealing with how the person using the method learned Act and chapter 10 of the Prosecution familiar with the procedure as early as gations are also initiated when a person of it, as well as what knowledge or control Instructions. The officer did not have the 2005. dies or is seriously injured as a result of all conceivable situations. senior officers, the Norwegian Police right to decide on physical examination. an act carried out in the performance Directorate or the Police University College The Bureau further pointed out that the Managers in the police district told of duty or while the person is in police had of the development of the method. procedure had been brutally carried out. that they were unacquainted with the custody. If the Bureau initiates investiga- Neither in its design nor from the point of procedure, and maintained that it could tions, the reported officer will be made The Bureau recently decided on a case view of hygiene is the baton regarded not have been employed to any great aware of the report when summoned where officers in a police district were as particularly suitable for the purpose it extent. One manager referred to the fact to examination as a suspect. The officer reported for improper conduct. When the was used for. In a judgment of 13 March that police routines did not exist for dealing is also informed of the report if coercive officers perceived that a person suspected 2014 (LB-2013-106824), Borgarting Court of with every conceivable situation, and measures are used against him. of drug trafficking attempted to conceal Appeal, like the Bureau, concluded that pointed out that the police did not have and swallow drugs, they prevented the sus­ the procedure is to be deemed a physical the capacity to take into custody all those In cases where investigations are not pect from swallowing the drugs by one of examination. suspected of concealing drugs in their initiated by the Bureau, the reported the officers inserting a collapsed telescopic mouths. When informed of the incident, officer often learns of the report as a baton in the suspect’s mouth while another The police officer told that they were often the police district’s top management had result of the Bureau’s written notification officer attempted to remove the drugs from faced with persons who attempted to banned the use of the baton for preventing of the decision not to prosecute. the person’s mouth using an extended te- conceal drugs in their mouths. Operative the swallowing of drugs. lescopic baton. While this was happening, officers had for some years needed a the suspect was lying on the pavement method for preventing the swallowing The Bureau understands that the police handcuffed behind his back resisting the of drugs, and the matter had been cannot have guidelines for dealing with actions of the police. The incident was brought up at training sessions. However, all conceivable situations. However, it is videoed by an observer, and the video was no solutions had been put forward by clearly a managerial responsibility to keep later made available on the Internet. the police district or the Police University informed concerning police procedures, 16 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 17 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

“THE POLICE DO MISUSE OF NOT ANSWER POLICE MY ENQUIRIES….” RECORDS

n connection with reports of offences uring the ten years of its existen- of such cases, both officers and defence and other enquiries to the Bureau, many ce, the Bureau has considered lawyers have expressed that this offence Ipeople complain that the police do not Dmany cases where it has been is not subject to penalty because “eve- answer their enquiries. A number of people revealed that police officers have used ryone else” snoops in the records. The say that they have repeatedly raised a police records to search for information fact that colleagues too have broken matter by telephone or e-mail without that they have no official need for. On rules or committed criminal offences has receiving any reply from the police. They the adoption and entry into force of the no significance for the criminal liability of feel that they are rebuffed. new Police Records Act and regulations the person being prosecuted. under the Act, all provisions concerning The Bureau understands that, in the course access to and use of police records of a busy working day, it may be difficult to have been gathered in one place. Alt- deal with all enquiries in an effective way. hough it was not possible to interpret the We also know that many people are not rules in any other way previously either, satisfied with the answer they receive if it the Act now states explicitly that access fails to meet their expectations. to information from police records shall be provided to the extent needed in On the basis of their responsibilities as a the course of duty and for the purposes public agency, the police may not omit to covered by the Act. Use of the records reply to enquiries. A rapid and explanatory in violation of the rules may, following a response is good service and, in most specific assessment, also be subject to cases, good use of resources. Enquiries that penalty. The Bureau has responded with remain unanswered create dissatisfaction penalties for misuse of records – includi- and additional work. ng in cases where information has not been disclosed in such a way as to con- stitute a breach of confidentiality. The annual lists of decisions to prosecute and court cases include both fines and con- victions for misuse of records. In conne- ction with investigation and prosecution 18 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 19 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014 Text: Investigative Prosecutor Helle Gulseth, Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs

In spring 2013, the Bureau received a request from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) to provide an expert in connection with a visit to Portugal. Owing to my international experience from the Ministry ASSISTANCE TO of Justice’s Crisis Response Pool project (Styrkebrønn) in Afghanistan and Moldova, I was asked to attend, and was THE CPT then approved by the CPT. (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture )

The CPT’s report concerning the visit PORTUGAL the ill-treatment or carried it out were not For information on the CPT’s work in UKRAINE My task consisted mainly of reviewing parts and the response of the Portuguese The visit, which took place in May 2013, held responsible for their actions. It was Ukraine in autumn 2013 and spring In September 2014, I took part in the CPT’s of this investigation material with a focus authorities are available here: was a follow-up of the CPT’s periodic visit to furthermore pointed out that, unless such 2014, see the CPT website: visit to Ukraine. The visit was a follow-up both on the investigation of individual ca- Portugal in February 2012. The CPT wished allegations were responded to promptly www.cpt.coe.int/en, particularly: of previous visits and contact with the ses and on Ukraine’s systems for processing • www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ to further investigate a number of matters and effectively, the offenders would belie- Ukrainian authorities in 2013 and 2014, with such cases. prt/2013-35-inf-eng.pdf concerning the prison service, and also wis- ve that they could continue their ill-treat- • www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ particular attention to the situation and de- hed to examine Portugal’s national systems ment with impunity. ukr/2014-15-inf-eng.pdf velopments in Ukraine since autumn 2013. CPT work has enabled me once more to • www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ for dealing with allegations of abuse of focus my attention outside Norway’s bor- prt/2013-36-inf-eng.pdf civilians by persons in positions of authority. The visit revealed systematic failure in cer- • www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ Meetings held included meetings with ders and work on matters of importance to The delegation also reviewed several speci- tain areas. There was, for example, no cen- ukr/2013-12-20-eng.htm ministries, the Prosecutor General and the human rights. Knowledge of other nations’ fic cases concerning allegations of abuse tral system for ensuring documentation of Public Prosecutor’s Office in Kiev. Visits systems also enables us to view Norwegian by persons in positions of authority. abuse cases enabling control that such al- • www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ were paid to a number of institutions where arrangements more critically. legations were followed up. The committee ukr/2014-02-26-eng.htm prisoners were held, and a considerable The delegation from the CPT held a also pointed out a number of shortcomings number of persons were examined. One number of meetings, among others, with in the investigation of individual cases. • www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ of the purposes of the visit was to investi- ministries, the Prosecutor General’s Office, ukr/2014-09-18-eng.htm gate allegations of serious physical abuse the prison service, and the Inspectorate of detainees by staff at two prisons. The General of Home Affairs (IGAI), and also CPT had received clear indications that reviewed a number of cases concerning detainees had been subjected to physical allegations of abuse by persons in positions punishment and other reprisals for allegedly of authority. My contribution was primarily complaining to the CPT. associated with the latter. Another purpose of the visit was to examine The CPT stressed the importance of fol- the remand custody situation of persons lowing up allegations of abuse of civilians who had been arrested in connection by persons in positions of authority, in rela- with the ongoing antiterrorism operations. tion both to the victims and to the persons The visit also involved an assessment of accused of such abuse. It was emphasised the prosecuting authority’s investigation of that the credibility of the ban on ill-treat- allegations of abuse of civilians by persons ment was weakened every time persons in positions of authority during the Maidan in positions of authority who had ordered demonstrations. 20 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 21 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014 Text: Helga Fastrup Ervik, head of the Norwegian National Preventive Mechanism against Torture and Ill-Treatment

When in June 2013 Norway ratified the supplementary protocol (OPCAT) to the United Nations Convention New role for the against Torture, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received a special mandate to combat torture, inhuman or Parliamentary Ombudsman: degrading treatment or punishment. PREVENTION OF TORTURE

uring spring 2014, the Parliamentary employee(s), with the possible addition of bodies, particularly the United Nations are common at several facilities despite Ombudsman’s National Preventive an interpreter. Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture the fact that police custody is unsuitable DMechanism against Torture and (SPT). The SPT can itself visit all institutions for long periods of detention. The buildings Ill-Treatment was established as a new unit Following a visit, a report is published for deprivation of liberty in Norway and and locations of police custody facilities at the Office of the Parliamentary Ombuds- containing both findings and recommen- provide guidance to the National Preven- make it difficult to meet the basic needs of man. dations. The reports are made available on tion Mechanism. The Prevention Mecha- the detainees to see daylight and to take the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website nism also holds an ongoing dialogue part in physical activity. Specific measures The Prevention Mechanism is an interdisci- (https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/ with international expert organisations on were proposed to mitigate the adverse plinary team of five persons with expertise om-torturforebygging/forsiden/). The unit prevention of torture, such as the Associa- effects of isolation, and recommendations in human rights, medicine and social does not consider individual complaints, tion for the Prevention of Torture (APT) and were given concerning medical assistance science. The unit may also engage external but ensures that persons deprived of liberty the European Committee for the Preventi- and suicide risk. experts for selected visits. are informed of the possibility of having on of Torture (CPT), and participates in the their case considered by one of the other professional networks for European OPCAT Visiting activities will be gradually increased The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Preven- departments of the Parliamentary Ombuds- bodies. in 2015, and extended to other types of tion Mechanism conducts visits throughout man. institution, such as psychiatric institutions Norway to places where persons have In autumn 2014, a visit was paid to two and child welfare institutions. The visits to been or may have been deprived of their Effective prevention is dependent on prisons (Tromsø and Bergen). Two visits custody facilities will be continued, and will liberty. This includes prisons, police custo- an integrated approach. An advisory were paid to the central custody facility in as a rule be unannounced. dy facilities, detention centres for foreign committee with 15 members has therefore Vestfold police district (Tønsberg) and one nationals, psychiatric institutions and locked been established to ensure guidance and visit to the central custody facility in Søndre Annual reports on the work will be submit- child welfare institutions. The Prevention input from experts and civil society. Regular Buskerud police district (Drammen). The first ted to the Storting and to the United Nati- Mechanism has access to all such places contact is also kept with the competent visit to the Tønsberg custody facility was ons Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. including private institutions licensed by the ministries, directorates and existing adminis- announced in advance, while the second public authorities. Visits may be announced trative supervisory bodies. Furthermore, the visit was unannounced. The reports from all or unannounced. Prevention Mechanism provides lectures to of the visits are available on the Parliamen- relevant educational institutions and holds tary Ombudsman’s website. A major source of information is intervi- an ongoing dialogue with the trade unions ews with persons deprived of their liberty, in the sectors covered by the mandate. In the reports concerning visits to the police and the interviews are always conducted custody facilities, the unit was concerned without other persons present than the Internationally, the Prevention Mechanism with failure to comply with the time limit for person deprived of liberty and the Unit’s cooperates with international human rights detention. Long periods of police custody 22 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 23 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

In spring 2014, the Norwegian Police Directorate issued a statistical memorandum on police use of firearms. The following are some statistics from this publication (see “Politiets trussel om bruk av skytevåpen eller bruk av skytevåpen 2002–2013” [Police use of firearms or threats to use firearms 2002–2013], statistical memorandum revised 1 May 2014, Department of Police Preparedness and Crisis Management, Norwegian Police Directorate.

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE SHOTS WERE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THE POLICE FIRED BY THE POLICE THREATENED TO USE FIREARMS

2005 3 2005 52 2006 3 2006 75 2007 0 2007 65 INVESTIGATION OF 2008 2 2008 55 2009 3 2009 58 CASES INVOLVING 2010 6 2010 75 2011 1 2011 66 2012 3 2012 58 POLICE SHOOTING 2013 3 2013 58

he Norwegian Bureau for the were fired or where the use of firearms was B sprayed towards him with pepper spray response to a report that shots had been Investigation of Police Affairs will not only threatened. without any visible effect. B’s partner C fired in the vicinity of a holiday cabin. The commission that investigated take any standpoint on the question arrived on the scene with the patrol car The patrol that turned out was granted T the police’s handling of the incidents of arming of the police. However, during Since 2005, the Bureau has investigated and B armed himself with the revolver that permission to carry firearms, and armed of 22 July 2011 obtained statistics a period of public debate on this issue, 15 cases where injury to a person has was stored in the car. Witnesses described themselves with service revolvers that were concerning police operations we consider that it may be of interest to occurred as a result of the use of firearms A at this point as rocking from side to side, kept in the cars. After some time, more Can experience of involving the use of firearms. The investigation of cases where provide an account of experience of by the police. A total of 16 persons have screaming and hitting the air with the armed units arrived on the scene, including commission’s analysis showed that, the investigation of shooting incidents been injured in such incidents and, in two cleaver. There were several persons in the the Police Tactical Firearms Unit. Outside during the period 2004–2012, a the police have used firearms during the last ten years. According to of these cases, the injuries resulted in death. area, including a number of children. B the cabin, two persons responded to shouts total of 19 688 separate operations the rules, the Bureau must be notified shouted “armed police!” to A and several from the police. They informed that a third involving the use of firearms were provide a basis for reflection and must initiate investigation of all cases The first incident with fatal consequences times “Stop! It’s the police!”, “Lie down!” person had run into the forest armed with recorded by Norway’s police districts. in the public debate on where one or more persons has been occurred in Larvik on 18 May 2005. The while aiming at A’s stomach. B perceived a shotgun. During the hours until A was shot The number increased by 44% from injured as a result of the use of firearms police responded to a call from a person that A moved as if to throw the cleaver at and killed by the police, they shouted to 2007. arming of the police? Can by the police. Pursuant to section 34-6, who had been threatened with a knife. him and fired two shots in quick succession. him many times. Warning shots were fired second paragraph, of the Prosecution A patrol turned out to talk to the person The subsequent investigation showed that and A responded several times by firing at Source: Official Norwegian Report experience of investigation Instructions, the Bureau, regardless of who was threatened and the assumed one of the shots hit A in the chest, killing the police and then continuing to run. Five (NOU) 2012:14 Report of the 22 July of shooting incidents provide any suspicion of a criminal offence, shall perpetrator (A). It was not considered him immediately. One of the shots failed officers were hit by pellets from A’s shotgun. Commission, page 325 investigate cases where any person is killed necessary to request permission to carry to hit A. The Bureau examined 29 witnesses After taking cover behind a stone edging, a basis for training in the or seriously injured as a result of actions by firearms. When the patrol called on A in addition to examining B and C as he fired at the Police Tactical Firearms Unit, the police carried out in the performance at his home, the police officer B, began suspects. Forensic enquiries and an expert which had positioned itself approximately conducted, an expert autopsy was carried police? of duty. Moreover, the Director of Public talking to him. A dangerous situation soon autopsy were carried out. Statements 15 metres from the stone edging. There out and documentation was obtained from Prosecutions has issued instructions that arose when A approached B with a raised were obtained from the Norwegian Police were repeated shouts of “armed police, the police (including video recordings from investigations are to be initiated in such cleaver. B sprayed pepper spray in A’s University College and the armed forces on put your hands on your head” or the like, the police helicopter that took part in the cases regardless of whether complaints direction and, while running out of the way, the danger associated with a knife attack. to which A responded with shots that hit operation). All of the cases were dropped have been made, including cases where tripped and fell. A turned and walked in The case was dropped for both B and C on two of the officers of the Tactical Firearms on the ground that no criminal offence was injury of a person by police use of firearms is a different direction. The patrol requested the ground that no criminal offence was Unit. Two officers from the Police Tactical deemed proven. not serious (The Director of Public Prose­ permission to carry firearms and pursued deemed proven. Firearms Unit then fired several shots at cutions’ circular 3/2006). The Bureau has A, who moved into an area with a lot of A. One of the shots hit A in the head, In one of the other cases, life-threatening also investigated incidents where the people and traffic. Before arming himself, On 22 April 2006, an arrest situation ended rapidly resulting in his death. The Bureau injuries were brought about by gunshot police have fired at a person without hitting B shouted to A that he must stop. A then when a person (A) was shot and killed examined 21 witnesses and four police wounds in the thighs. The other 13 persons him and incidents where only warning shots approached B again with a raised cleaver. by the police. The police turned out in officers as suspects. Forensic enquiries were shot and injured by the police did not 24 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 25 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

The Bureau has not imposed penalties on officers who have fired on persons during operations. How­ever, a number THE BUREAU’S INVESTIGATION OF of officers have been fined for careless handling of firearms during exercises. Continued In 2013, an officer was fined for gross SHOOTING INCIDENTS lack of judgment in the course of duty after firing five shots at the tires In the event of loss of life or serious injury, the Bureau is notified immediately. Some time of a passenger car that the police may elapse before the Bureau’s investigators arrive at the scene of the incident. The were attempting to stop. The fine Bureau needs information that can rapidly enable it to make decisions concerning was not accepted and the case was the investigative steps to be taken. An immediate request will therefore be routinely considered by Oslo District Court, made for the duty log concerning the incident and the sound recording as well as where the officer was acquitted. In a list of the officers who participated in the operation and persons with responsibility its assessment of the case, the district INVESTIGATION OF for making decisions during the operation. It must be clarified who is to secure and court found that the police officer examine the scene of the incident. The Bureau will assess the need to request shiel­ had failed to comply with the Firearms ding of the officers who took part in the operation until they are examined. If it is Instructions, but that his assessment unclear who fired, it may be appropriate to take samples of gunshot residues. Service CASES INVOLVING was not so unjustifiable that it amounted to gross lack of judgment in weapons must be secured. A photograph of the weapon must preferably be taken POLICE SHOOTING the course of duty. before emptying and securing it following the correct procedure.

suffer life-threatening injuries. All except to section 11 of the Firearms Instructions. where officers were investigated for the “Both the quality and the scope of the situational training is carried out in a two cases concerned leg injuries. One The provision authorises individual officers use of a service weapon is that all of the Norwegian Police University College’s training simulator. Here, the cadets are person was hit in the stomach and one to carry firearms when they are prevented cases were dropped on the ground that training in weapons and tactics have shown video sequences where they are person was hit in the buttock and in from obtaining an order to carry firearms no criminal offence was deemed proven. shown positive development during the required to watch, understand, assess the hand. Only one of these 15 cases from their superior officer and the situation The crucial factor is of course compliance last 10 years. Instructor courses have and act correctly in compliance with concerned a planned armed operation. makes it necessary to do so. In the remain­ with provisions of the Police Act and the been established with specialised mo- the Police Firearms Instructions and the The police shot and injured two persons ing cases, permission to carry a firearm Firearms Instructions concerning gradual dules for arrest technique, weapons and Guidelines for Tactics and Weapons. during an attempted robbery in August had been given either in advance of or escalation of use of the measure, and that tactics, which have raised the expertise The video sequences were developed 2004. The case was first investigated by the during the operation. Some of the cases the firearms must only be used as a last of instructors and tactical personnel in in connection with the Police University former SEFO and then transferred to the concerned situations involving arrest of a resort. In many of the cases, shots were fired the police. The Operations Section at College’s simulator project, which pro- Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation suspect where the person concerned had because the police officer who fired felt the Norwegian Police University College duced entirely new teaching material. of Police Affairs. The police had obtained been observed with a weapon or had that his life or the lives of other people were has also made considerable efforts to The basis for this project was the decision advance information regarding plans for already used a weapon (several cases in danger. raise the quality of weapons training in of the Bureau and the Director of Public armed robbery of a money transport on this concerned a turn-out in connection with the police, and the number of hours of Prosecutions based on legal assessments day in DNB NOR’s premises at Jessheim. The a stabbing). In the view of the Bureau, two dead and weapons training in the Norwegian Po- of the police’s use of firearms in the police were present when the perpetrators 13 injured persons as a result of the police’s lice University College bachelors course course of duty. This documentation has entered the building and, during the arrest, Other cases concerned arrest situations use of firearms over a period of 10 years, has increased from 54 hours in 2007 to formed the basis for many of the video both robbers were hit by shots fired by the where, during an operation, officers is a relatively small number considering 102.5 hours in 2014. This is partly because sequences in the training simulator, and police. became aware that the perpetrator had the number of police operations. It is of the introduction of pistols, resulting in the decisions relevant to these are en- a weapon or was threatening to use a reasonable to assume that there are many the replacement of two days’ training closed with the instructor manuals. In this In only one of the cases involving injury or weapon. Several of the cases concerned situations where in the circumstances the In 2014, Police Superintendent Steinar in revolver use by one week’s training in way, the Police University College makes loss of life as a result of the police’s use of the arrest of persons who, in the situation, use of firearms would be in compliance Vee Henriksen was awarded the Police pistol use. The pistol course also places use of the active empirical data underly- firearms had the officer who fired armed appeared to be mentally unstable. A with the Firearms Instructions, but where, University College’s prize for educational considerable emphasis on weapon ing these decisions to maintain a critical himself without first obtaining permission common feature of the cases is that shots for various reasons, the situation is not quality for his work on development handling. In this connection, training and development-oriented perspective to carry a firearm. The police officer are first fired after the police have shouted dealt with in this way (see separate box for of firearms training for police cadets. in weapons and tactics focuses on for this training.” concerned had responded to a call for to make their presence known and, in statistics concerning orders to carry firearms The Bureau has asked him to give an keeping the use of force to a minimum, assistance over the radio communications several of the cases, have endeavoured for and shots fired). The question is whether account of the development of the and safety for all parties has high priority. system informing that the perpetrator was some time to persuade the perpetrator to amendment of the firearms arrangements Police University College’s weapons and armed. The Bureau found that the call over give himself up. will affect how the police deal with such tactics training during the last 10 years, In the training at the Police University the radio communications system provided situations. and how the Bureau’s decisions are College within the legal framework a reason for carrying a firearm pursuant Another common feature of all 15 cases used in teaching today. of the police’s use of means of force, 26 27

CASE PROCESSING AT TWO LEVELS

The Bureau is both an investigative and a prosecutorial body. Its activities are governed by the Criminal Procedure Act, the Prosecution Instructions and directives issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Case processing is carried out at two levels. The Director of the Bureau does not participate in or issue detailed guidelines for the work of the investigation divisions.

THE INVESTIGATION DIVISIONS THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU

Reasoned decisions in writing 1 Receipt of a report or case 3 Investigation 1 provided in all cases 4 Administrative assessment The Bureau receives reports of offences from private individuals, The Bureau has the right to employ all lawful methods of The Director of the Bureau decides all of the Bureau’s cases If, through the report of an offence or in connection with the lawyers and police districts. In some cases, the Bureau investigation. In the Bureau’s cases, evidence is primarily (except cases where the question of prosecution is decided by Bureau’s investigation, factors come to light indicating that opens a case on its own initiative, for example on the basis obtained by examining the complainant, witnesses and the King in Council or by the Director of Public Prosecutions). the case should be considered administratively, the Bureau is of media coverage. Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure suspects. In some cases, there are grounds for search, arrest In all cases, including those dropped without investigation, a required to send the case to the chief of police concerned, the Act, it is obligatory to investigate cases where a person dies and remand in custody. In most cases, documentation will be reasoned decision is provided in writing, stating the details of director of the relevant special body or other appropriate body or is seriously injured as a result of an act carried out in the obtained as part of the preliminary enquiries. Beyond this, it the report, the enquiries conducted by the Bureau, the facts (see section 34-7 of the Prosecution Instructions). For further performance of duty or while the person was in the custody of may, for example, be relevant to examine the scene of the of the case and a legal opinion concerning the matter. The information, see page 40. the police or prosecuting authority. incident, obtain medical assessments, seize telephones or decision is prepared by one of the lawyers at the office of the computers and obtain logs of searches made in police records. Director of the Bureau.

Written recommendation to the 2 Enquiries 4 Director of the Bureau 2 Decisions not to prosecute 5 Notification of the parties to the case The Bureau conducts enquiries to assess whether there When a matter is regarded as adequately investigated, If there are no reasonable grounds to investigate whether a The decision must be sent to the parties to the case (as a rule are reasonable grounds for initiating an investigation. The the case is sent to the Director of the Bureau with a criminal offence has been committed in the course of duty, the complainant and the reported officers) and the chief complainant is often interviewed in order to obtain more recommendation written by one of the division’s permanent the case is dropped without investigation in accordance of police of the district concerned. If the case concerns the information concerning the complaint. Documentation is lawyers or by one of the lawyers on assignment. with section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act. If the case is Norwegian Police Directorate’s sphere of responsibility, it is obtained from the police, such as the duty log for an incident investigated and the evidence strongly contraindicates that sent to the Directorate. In matters submitted for administrative or the sound and video material from the custody facility. If a criminal offence has been committed, the case is dropped assessment, the Norwegian Police Directorate receives a copy there is a related criminal case against the complainant, the on the ground that no criminal offence is deemed proven. of the decision. documents relating to the case are as a rule obtained. If the facts of the case cannot be sufficiently clarified, or is there is doubt concerning whether the objective or subjective conditions for criminal liability are met, the case is dropped owing to insufficient evidence.

Appeal to the Director General of 3 Decisions to prosecute 6 Public Prosecutions When the conditions for criminal liability are present, a writ The decisions of the Bureau’s can be appealed to the Director prescribing an optional fine, a waiver of prosecution or an of Public Prosecutions. indictment is issued. In accordance with good prosecution practice, indictment is not to be issued unless one is convinced of culpability and that this can be proved in a court of law. 28 29

STATISTICS FOR 2014

RECORDED COMPLAINTS COMPLAINANTS [distribution by gender] NO REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR INVESTIGATION (Number of cases dropped without investigation)

2011 1228 81 % 2012 1247 30 % 43 % 40 % 45 % 2013 1226 19 % 2014 1029

(2011) (2012) (2013) (2014)

The question of whether investigation is to be initiated [cases decided] WHO ARE COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST? WHO LODGES COMPLAINTS? NUMBER OF CASES is discretionary. Pursuant to section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a criminal investigation shall be carried out when, as a result of a report or other circumstances, there Aggrieved party are reasonable grounds to investigate whether any criminal 47 % 70 % matter requiring prosecution by the public authorities 25% of cases are decided at case 1243 1323 881 subsists. Major factors in the assessment of whether there level, i.e. no-one is given suspect The police district itself are reasonable grounds for initiating investigation include (2012) (2013) (2014) the probability that one or more criminal acts have been status in the case. 11 % committed, the seriousness of any such criminal acts and a specific assessment of objectivity. Aggrieved party (lawyer) 11 % The Bureau has a low threshold for initiating investigations. The Bureau drops between 30% and 45% of cases without Others (e.g. witnesses) investigation partly because many complaints concern entirely lawful performance of duty and partly because 6 % some complaints are clearly subjective or groundless. The 9 % 9 % The Bureau itself Bureau also receives complaints where the motive of the 5 % complainant is clearly to obstruct the work of the police in an 2 % ongoing investigation. Although a case is dropped without 2 % 3 % investigation, a number of enquiries have generally been made, and a reasoned decision is written. Employees Police officer Police lawyer Other persons Civilian police Civilian police The police district 30 31

STATISTICS FOR 2014

DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS [Cases referred to chiefs of police or directors of special bodies]

1418 81 (5 %) 57 34 47 39 1359 1020 cases cases cases cases 55 36 (4 %) (4 %) 1233 Number of complaints dealt with 35 (2011) (2012) (2013) (2014) (3 %)

Decisions to APPEALS (the Director of Public Prosecutions) CASE PROCESSING TIME [days] prosecute

In 2014, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered 174 appeals against decisions made 2011 166 by the Bureau. 2011 2012 2013 2014 174 162 In 172 of the cases, the Bureau’s decision was 2012 In 2014, 36 out of 1020 complaints considered resulted in an among these, the right to use force in carrying out their duties. upheld. In one case which was dropped owing optional fine, indictment or waiver of prosecution (4%). A total Both the legislature and the courts have established that the 172 to insufficient evidence by the Bureau, the of 22 persons were sentenced to penalties. No enterprises police must be allowed a considerable margin of error before Director of Public Prosecution changed the 2013 175 were sentenced to corporate penalties (for more information, being made criminally liable for otherwise lawful performance decision and issued a waiver of prosecution. see pages 32–35). of duty. In cases concerning use of force in connection with In the second case the Director of Public Prosecution changed the decision not to 159 arrest, an officer may only be found criminally liable when 2014 prosecute based on insufficient evidence to a As prosecuting authority, the Bureau must decide cases in ac­ his or her actions are deemed unnecessary and absolutely decision to drop the case on the ground that no cordance with the frameworks that follow from legislation and unwarranted. Criminal liability must be assessed in relation to criminal offence was deemed proven. The Bureau aims at an average case processing time of no case law. The law provides the police with extensive powers, the officer’s perception of the situation at the time. longer than 150 days.

In 2014, 22% of cases decided were appealed. 22% 32 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 33 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

2014 DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE ACTIVITIES IN 2014

INDICTMENTS January 2015. The district court acquitted ment also concerned violation of official turn-out, he had, in view of the conditions, was fined for careless driving (see secti- Use of illegal workers, etc the police officer. The Bureau has appea- duties for use of police records for non-offi- driven too fast, had entered the opposing on 31, first paragraph, cf. section 3 of the • On 10 September 2014, a police officer led against the acquittal. cial searches. The main hearing is schedu- lane and driven into the left-hand side of Road Traffic Act). While driving a uniformed was indicted for violation of section 108, led for May 2015. a meeting car. The collision had resulted in police car, she had entered the opposing second paragraph (c), of the Immigrati- False testimony material damage to both vehicles. The fine lane and created a hazardous situation. The following is a list of cases on Act in that she had provided incorre- • On 22 September 2014, the spouse of a FINES was accepted. The fine, which was set at NOK 5 000, was ct information to the police in connecti- police officer was indicted for violation of Violation of the Road Traffic Act accepted. in 2014 where the Bureau on with an application for reunification with section 166 of the Penal Code concerning • On 8 April 2014, a police officer (A) was fi- • On 13 June 2014, a police officer was fi- decided to prosecute. The list her spouse. She was further indicted for vio- false testimony. The grounds were that, in ned NOK 10 000 for careless driving (see se- ned NOK 6 000 for driving through a red • On 18 September 2014, a police officer lation of section 108, third paragraph (a), an application for family reunification with ction 3 of the Road Traffic Act). While dri- light (see section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, was fined for careless driving (see secti- contains indictments, fines of the Immigration Act in that she had pro- the police officer, the person concerned ving a non-uniformed police car towards cf. section 24 of the Regulations concer- on 31, first paragraph, cf. section 3, of the and waivers of prosecution. vided accommodation and work in her had incorrectly informed that they lived to- a marked pedestrian crossing, he had fai- ning public road signs, road markings, traf- Road Traffic Act). In a left-hand bend, he home to two women of foreign nationa- gether. The case has been postponed sin- led to show sufficient consideration, alert- fic light signals and directions) and for had veered into the opposing lane and lity despite the fact that the women did not ce the indicted person has no known ad- ness and caution, and had therefore been using a blue light in violation of section 14 collided with a meeting car resulting in da- hold work permits. The officer was also in- dress in Norway, and it has not been too late in noticing a pedestrian in the (1) of the Traffic Regulations. The grounds mage to both vehicles. The fine, which was dicted for violation of section 324 of the possible to serve the indictment on him. process of crossing the road at the crossing. were that she, as driver of a uniformed po- set at NOK 8 000, was accepted. Penal Code concerning violation of offici- He had collided with the pedestrian, who lice car, had used a blue light and dri- al duties in that she had made a number of Gross fraud, etc. had been thrown onto the bonnet of the ven through a red light in order to overta- • On 1 December 2014, a police officer searches of police records without an offi- • On 18 December 2014, a civilian employ- car, had hit the windscreen and then fallen ke a bus that a colleague had wanted to was fined NOK 5 200 for careless driving cial purpose. The indictment also concer- ee was indicted for gross fraud, theft, vio- on the ground. A did not accept the fine, catch. The fine was accepted. (see section 31, first paragraph, cf. section ned violation of section 325, first paragraph lation of official duties, conduct likely to and the case was considered by the district 3, of the Road Traffic Act). The ground was (5), of the Penal Code in that the officer, by weaken confidence in the police service court as a summary judgment on confes- • On 1 September 2014, a civilian was fined that he, while driving a non-uniformed po- providing incorrect information and using il- and violation of the Firearms Act. The gro- sion. The district court upheld the fine and for violation of section 31, first paragraph, lice car, had failed to show sufficient consi- legal workers, had conducted herself in a unds for the fraud indictment were claims suspended A’s driver’s license for five mont- cf. section 3, of the Road Traffic Act. As the deration and alertness when making a left manner that would make her unworthy of for overtime pay for periods when the offi- hs in conformity with the Bureau’s request person concerned was about to drive out turn, so that he had collided with a cyclist or would have an adverse effect on the cial had not worked overtime. The theft in- during the hearing. A appealed the judg- from a parking space and onto the road, coming in the opposite direction in a mar- confidence or esteem necessary for her dictment and the violation of the Firearms ment to the Court of Appeal, which disallo- he had collided with a police car, resul- ked cycling lane. The fine was not accep- position in the police. The officer was also Act concerned the removal, among other wed the appeal. ting in material damage to both vehicles. ted. charged with three counts of human traf- items, of a baton and a canister of pepper The fine, which was set at NOK 5 200, was ficking. These charges were dropped owing spray from the workplace, which had been • On 23 April 2014, a police officer was fi- accepted. • On 18 December 2014, a police officer to insufficient evidence. The case was he- kept at the person’s home without the per- ned NOK 6 000 for careless driving (see se- was fined for violation of section 31, first pa- ard by Asker and Bærum District Court in mission of the chief of police. The indict- ction 3 of the Road Traffic Act). During a • On 18 September 2014, a police officer ragraph, cf. section 3, of the Road Traf- 34 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 35 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

Continued

2014 DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE ACTIVITIES IN 2014

fic Act. The officer had decided to make of possession of a small quantity of hashish, paragraph, of the Penal Code). The gro- nuary 2013, he had at his workplace repea- ce was acquitted by Frostating Court of secution. The police lawyer had had pro- a U-turn. While turning to the left, he had and that he had made a search of po- und was that he had hit a detainee with a tedly searched via the criminal intelligence Appeal. The majority of the Court of Ap- secutory responsibility for retrieval, use and collided with a vehicle that had been in lice records without an official purpose. The clenched fist on the left side of the head. system Indicia for information concerning peal did not find it proven that the indicted storage of telecommunications data in re- process of driving past him on his left side, fine, which was set at NOK 15 000, was not The fine also concerned violation of secti- a person with whom he had a personal re- person had understood that he was not en- spect of telephones belonging to two lawy- resulting in material damage to both ve- accepted, and the case was considered on 325 (3) of the Penal Code involving im- lationship, without having an official pur- titled to remove the computer. After rem- ers in connection with an investigation of hicles. The fine, which was set at NOK 5 200, by the district court in January 2015. proper remarks made by the police officer pose for making the searches. The fine was oving the computer from the workplace, leaks concerning the 22 July case. Despite was accepted. while taking the detainee to the police sta- accepted. the police officer had become aware that the fact that the telecommunications data • On 21 August 2014, in connection with tion. The fine, which was set at NOK 12 000, it had been seized in a criminal case and may have contained information subject Breach of confidentiality the Bureau’s investigation of a police of- was not accepted, and the case was con- • On 10 June 2014, a police officer was fi- contained pornographic material that was to lawyers’ duty of confidentiality, they had • On 19 September 2014, a police officer ficer for drug offences, a civilian was fined sidered by the district court. The district ned for breach of section 324 of the Penal unlawful to be in possession of. However, he been examined by employees of the po- was fined for violation of section 121, first for violation of section 162, first paragraph, court acquitted the police officer for hitting Code concerning violation of official duti- made no attempt to clarify the origin of the lice district and partly processed in a police paragraph, of the Penal Code for bre- of the Penal Code. The ground was that he the detainee, but convicted him of impro- es. On a total of 118 occasions from 2009 computer, and had not notified his employ- report that had later been used in conne- ach of the statutory duty of confidentiality. had obtained a small quantity of cannabis. per remarks. Both the police officer and the to 2013, the officer had, without an official er that the computer had been removed ction with examination. Despite the Court The ground was that the officer had log- The fine, which was set at NOK 5 000, was Bureau appealed the district court’s judg- purpose, searched in police records for in- from the police station and kept by an ac- of Appeal’s decision that the seizure could ged into the police data systems and ob- accepted. ment, and the case is scheduled for ap- formation concerning an acquaintance. quaintance of his. In the view of the Bure- not be upheld, the telecommunications tained information from the duty log that peal at the Court of Appeal in April 2015. The fine, which was set at NOK 12 000, was au, the failure to notify, etc. entailed gross data had been retained without applying the police were investigating an address • On 25 August 2014, in connection with accepted. lack of judgment in the course of duty (see legal remedies. in his neighbourhood on suspicion of the the Bureau’s investigation of a police of- • On 12 November 2014, an escort officer section 325, first paragraph (1), of the Penal sale of alcoholic beverages not cleared ficer for drug offences, his cohabitant was at a detention centre for foreign nationals • On 12 September 2014, a civilian employ- Code). Following acquittal of the police of- by customs. He had given this information fined for violation of section 31, second pa- was fined for violation of section 228, first ee of the police service was fined for bre- ficer for theft by the Court of Appeal, the to his wife. The fine, which was set at NOK ragraph, cf. section 24, first paragraph, of paragraph, of the Penal Code. The ground ach of section 324 of the Penal Code con- Bureau waived prosecution for this offence. 15 000, was not accepted, and the case is the Act relating to medicinal products, etc. was that he had slapped one of the detai- cerning violation of official duties. During a scheduled to be heard by the district court. The ground was that, on several occasi- nees on the left side of his head and had period of two months, she had made 272 • The Director of Public Prosecutions requ- ons during a period of two years, she had then kicked him. The fine, which was set at searches in police records without an offici- ested the Bureau to issue a waiver of pro- Drug offences used hashish and cocaine. The fine, which NOK 16 000, was not accepted. The main al purpose. The fine, which was set at NOK secution of a police lawyer for violation of • On 21 August 2014, a police officer was fi- was set at NOK 5 000, was not accepted, hearing is scheduled for April 2015. 8 000, was accepted. section 325 (1) of the Penal Code concer- ned for two violations of section 31, second and the case was considered by the district ning gross lack of judgment in the cour- paragraph, cf. section 24, first paragraph, court in January 2015. Violation of official duties WAIVER OF PROSECUTION se of duty. The Bureau had dropped the of the Act relating to medicinal products, • On 6 January 2014, a police officer was fi- Gross lack of judgment in the course case owing to insufficient evidence. The etc. and one violation of section 324 of the Bodily harm ned NOK 10 000 for violation of section 324 of duty case had been appealed to the Director Penal Code. The grounds were one count • On 1 April 2014, a police officer was fi- of the Penal Code. The ground was that, • A police officer who was indicted for of Public Prosecutions who had found the- of use of hashish and cocaine, one count ned for bodily harm (see section 228, first during the period from 5 May 2010 to 31 Ja- gross theft of a computer from his workpla- re to be grounds for issuing a waiver of pro- 36 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 37 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

In the judgment of Inntrøndelag District woman in connection with the report of a Asker and Bærum District Court Court of 13 December 2013, the indicted robbery. While being examined and confi- Careless driving – duration of loss of driver’s person was sentenced to imprisonment ned in custody, the woman had jerked her licence for one year and six months. In the district head backwards, hitting the police officer After having collided with a pedestrian at court, he was acquitted for certain counts in the face. The police officer had then stru- a pedestrian crossing, a police officer was of the indictment, including allegations of ck the woman on the left side of her head. served a writ by the Bureau prescribing an corruption. Both the indicted person and The Bureau’s assessment was that the po- optional fine of NOK 10 000 for careless dri- the Bureau appealed against the district lice officer’s blow was a penal offence. ving (see section 31, first paragraph, cf. se- court’s judgment. The charge of improper conduct concer- ction 3, of the Road Traffic Act). The writ ned the police officer’s conduct towards also prescribed that the officer would forfeit In Frostating Court of Appeals judgment the woman during the transport to the po- his driver’s licence for a period of six mont- of 28 November 2014, the indicted per- lice station. Among other things, he had re- hs. The police officer admitted criminal lia-

2014 son was sentenced to imprisonment for two marked to the woman, “Du er så lite fristen- bility and accepted the fine, but opposed years and ordered to pay compensation de og appetittlig at det finnes ikke verre”. withdrawal of his driver’s licence. In the he- to four aggrieved persons totalling NOK 111 “Du gjør ingen ting riktig. Alt du gjør er feil” aring, also attended by the Bureau, the du- 491. The judgment of the Court of Appeal [“You are so disagreeable and unpleasant ration of the loss of the driver’s licence was has been appealed to the Supreme Court that there’s nothing worse”. “You do no- set at five months by the district court. The COURT CASES and is not legally enforceable. thing right. Everything you do is wrong”]. appeal by the police officer against the dis- He had also told her that the police had trict court’s ruling concerning the loss of his

ACTIVITIES Sør-Østerdal District Court thrown away her rucksack, and refused to driver’s licence was disallowed. Violations of the Firearms Act, etc. answer when asked whether this was true. IN 2014 A police officer was indicted for several co- unts of unlawfully acquiring, possessing and The fine was not accepted, and the case storing firearms and ammunition. The indict- was heard by Oslo District Court. In the dis- ment also concerned false statements and trict court, the police officer admitted to the conduct likely to weaken confidence in the circumstances described, but not to crimi- Frostating Court of Appeal se of duty (see section 325, first paragraph police. nal liability. The district court acquitted the Gross theft (1), of the Penal Code). Following acquittal police officer of the charge of bodily harm A police officer was indicted for gross theft of the police officer for theft by the Court of In the district court the then retired police with reference to doubt following examina- of a computer from a police station. Appeal, the Bureau waived prosecution for officer was sentenced to imprisonment for tion of the evidence regarding whether or this offence. 10 months and confiscation of 125 firearms not the blow had been an unconscious re- When the Bureau issues The computer was seized by the police and various items of ammunition. He was, flex action. The police officer’s remarks in during a search at the home of an acqu- Frostating Court of Appeal among other things, convicted of acquiring the police car were judged by the court to an indictment, the case is aintance of the police officer. The acqu- Corruption, fraud, theft and violation of the firearms without the permission of the chi- be extremely offensive and, for this offence, prosecuted in court by one of aintance stated that he had received the Firearms Act ef of police, for possessing a number of fire- he was sentenced to a fine of NOK 5 000. computer from the police officer for assis- While employed as an enforcement officer arms without permission and for storage of the Bureau’s lawyers. ting in removing the password protection. in the police service, the indicted person firearms in violation of the rules. The court Both the Bureau and the police officer In the district court, the police officer was had requested a number of persons to pro- acquitted the indicted person for a number have appealed against the judgment, and convicted of theft, sentenced to a fine of vide him with money so that he could sett- of counts, including false testimony and for the appeal is scheduled to be heard in NOK 10 000 and ordered to pay costs. At le up with their most persistent creditors. having 14 firearms registered on his firearms May 2015. the appeal proceedings in Frostating Court None of the creditors had received money certificate despite the fact that they were of Appeal, the court’s majority conclu- from the indicted person. When the indic- not in his possession. Oslo District Court ded that it could not be deemed proven ted person had left the police to work as Careless driving that the police officer, when removing the a financial adviser in the Norwegian Wel- Both the indicted person and the Bureau A police officer was fined by the Bureau for computer from the police station, had un- fare and Labour Service, he had asked se- appealed against the district court’s judg- careless driving (see section 31, first para- derstood that he was not entitled to do so. veral users to transfer money to him so that ment, and parts of the appeal have been graph, cf. section 3, of the Road ­Traffic Act. He was therefore acquitted. he could settle their debts for them. He had accepted for hearing. The appeal is sche- He had been driving a uniformed police also asked several users to transfer money duled to be heard by the Court of Appeal car in Oslo city centre and, when chan- After delivering the computer to his acqu- to a financial advisory firm of which he was in April 2015. ging lanes to the left, had collided with a aintance, the police officer had been infor- a co-owner. The indicted person had told passenger car. The police officer did not med that it contained unlawful pornograp- the users that processing of cases in the Oslo District Court accept the fine, and the case was heard hic material. However, the police officer public sector was slow, and that he could Violence and improper conduct by Oslo District Court. The court conclu- had made no attempt to clarify the ­origin deal with their cases more rapidly and effe- A police officer was fined by the Bureau for ded that the police officer had acted neg- of the computer, and had not notified his ctively through his firm. The indictment also violation of section 228, first paragraph, of ligently. He was sentenced to a fine of NOK employer that the computer had been concerned theft of an item in connection the Penal Code concerning bodily harm 8 400 and ordered to pay costs amounting removed from the police station. In the with a property sale as well as various viola- and for violation of section 325, first para- to NOK 3 000. The police officer’s appeal view of the Bureau, the failure to notify, etc. tions of the Firearms Act. graph (3), of the Penal Code (improper against the district court’s judgment was entailed gross lack of judgment in the cour- conduct). The police had arrested a young disallowed.­ 38 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 39 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

In cases involving serious injury or loss of life as a result of actions carried out by the police or prosecuting authority in the course of duty, the Bureau turns out and initiates immediate investigations. There may also be other cases where immediate response is called for. The Bureau has a duty scheme so that it can be contacted 24 hours a day in the event of serious incidents. In 2014, the Bureau turned out and initiated immediate investigations in 10 cases

2014 EMERGENCY INTERNATIONAL TURN-OUTS COOPERATION ACTIVITIES IN 2014 IN 2014

11 January 2014 31 March 2014 4 August 2014 JOINT PROFESSIONAL SEMINAR WITH THE LECTURE AT THE HUMAN RIGHTS Follo police district Sunnmøre police district Nord-Trøndelag police district DANISH POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY CONFERENCE IN LATVIA A person was seriously injured when The Bureau was notified that a person A woman who was lying asleep on the To follow up previous Nordic cooperation, In autumn 2014, the Bureau was invited to driving off the road while being pursued had been injured during arrest. In a ramp outside the police garage door a joint Nordic professional seminar was held hold a lecture at a conference on global, by a police patrol. scuffle between the arrested person and was driven over by a police car on its in 2014. The Bureau’s Danish sister organisa- regional and national mechanisms for an officer, the arrested person had been way out of the garage. In December 2014, an tion, the Danish Police Complaints Authority the prevention of torture and inhuman or 16 January 2014 hit on the head with a telescopic baton (DUP), invited the Bureau’s employees as degrading treatment. The seminar was held Vestoppland police district and had received cuts that had needed 30 November 2014 investigator from the Danish well as persons from the Swedish National by the Latvian Centre for Human Rights on The Bureau was notified that a person to be taped at the hospital. Haugaland and Sunnhordland Police Complaints Authority Police-related Crimes Unit to a professional the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the had shot himself when the police visited police district seminar in Århus 3–5 June 2014. Among European Committee for the Prevention of him at his home following a report of a 31 March 2014 The Bureau was notified that, during (DUP), visited Investigation other things, the programme included Torture. The conference was attended by domestic disturbance. Agder police district turn-out, a non-uniformed police car exchange of experience concerning employees of prisons and police custody A car driver died after colliding with had collided with a passenger car on a Division East Norway as an investigation of shooting incidents. Forensic facilities, human rights organisations and 9 February 2014 a goods vehicle. At the time of the roundabout. According to information observer. pathologist Peter Juel Thiis Knudsen gave authorities with responsibility for police and Salten police district accident, the car driver was being received, the driver of the passenger car a talk on gunshot wounds. There was also prison services. The Bureau’s representative A car driver died after colliding with a pursued by a police patrol car. had suffered spinal fractures. a debate with invited panellists on the held a lecture on experience of investiga- goods vehicle. Prior to the accident, the police’s use of force in a human rights ting incidents occurring in police custody in car driver had been pursued by a police 22 June 2014 4 December 2014 perspective. From the Bureau, the seminar the light of the requirements of internatio- patrol car. Haugaland and Sunnhordland Rogaland police district was attended by a total of 12 persons from nal conventions concerning independent police district The Bureau was notified that a person all three investigation divisions, the Director investigation. 18 March 2014 A person’s arm was broken in who earlier the same day had injured and the administration. Vestfold police district connection with arrest by the police. himself with a knife had absconded from The Bureau was notified that a car driver the accident and emergency unit and OBSERVER FROM THE DANISH POLICE had collided with two mopeds, and forcibly obtained a car. During vehicle COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (DUP) that the driver of one of the mopeds pursuit by the police, the person had In December 2014, an investigator from the had been severely injured. When the driven into the sea at a deep-water Danish Police Complaints Authority (DUP) accident occurred, the car driver was berth. After approximately 15 minutes, visited Investigation Division East Norway being pursued by a police patrol car. divers had succeeded in rescuing him as an observer. The Danish investigator from the car and bringing him ashore. participated in the performance of several The person had died two days after the tasks in order to gain an insight into how incident. cases are processed and investigated by the Bureau. 40 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 41 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

DEATH IN SECONDARY CUSTODY FACILITY worked for 10 years. The keycard system had no role in notifying the family­ of the – DEFICIENT EQUIPMENT FOR CELL that could have confirmed entry and exit deceased. He had assumed that this had MONITORING from the custody facility was also partly de- been done. The autopsy request signed Agder police district fect. Since the custody facility was a secon- by him stated that the family had been

2014 An intoxicated person suspected of a dary custody facility and therefore not sub- notified.­ drug offence was arrested late in the eve- ject to the same requirements regarding ADMINISTRATIVE ning by the police and taken into custody. communications and security as central It was not clear from the police documen- Owing to the condition of the arrested per- custody facilities, maintenance of the equ- tation and the police lawyer’s statement son when placed in the cell, it was decided ipment had not been given priority. The Bu- what information was available when the ASSESSMENTS to implement intensified supervision with in- reau pointed out in its assessment that the autopsy request was issued. On the basis spection every half hour. When, during the custody facility in question, although defi- of the provisions of chapter 13 of the Prose-

ACTIVITIES night, the arrested person said that he was ned as a secondary custody facility, had cution Instructions concerning expert auto- feeling unwell, he was taken to the acci- approximately 1200 detentions a year. The psy and the nature of the case, there were IN 2014 dent and emergency unit. On examinati- defensibility of failing to repair damaged no grounds for concluding that the police on at the accident and emergency unit no equipment could therefore be questioned. lawyer had acted in a manner that could indications were found that the arrested Grounds for criminal liability were not con- result in criminal liability. person could not remain in police custo- sidered. In view of the seriousness of the dy, and he was returned to the custody fa- case, the chief of police was requested to In accordance with section 13-3 of the Pro- DEATHS IN POLICE CUSTODY / NOTIFICATION officer told that it was the operations cen- cility. At approximately 05.00 hours, it was review the case administratively. secution Instructions, before conducting an OF FAMILY tre that had posted a message on Twitter discovered that the arrested person was autopsy, the family of the deceased should Rogaland police district that a person had been found dead in the not breathing. A resuscitation attempt was DECISIONS REGARDING AUTOPSY – be notified and given the opportunity to A police officer was reported for gross lack custody facility. The posted message was initiated and medical personnel were sum- NOTIFICATION OF THE FAMILY OF THE state their views. In its assessment of the of judgment in the course of duty in con­ as follows: “A person has died in the cus­ moned. The arrested person was later con- DECEASED case, the Bureau found that it is the respon- Experiential learning – nection with notification following a ­death tody facility in X. A message will shortly be firmed dead. In the pathologist’s report, the Sør-Trøndelag police district sibility of the police to ensure that the fa- in the custody facility. The report stated that given to the media”. The message resulted death was assumed to have been caused A mother reported the police in connec­ mily of the deceased is notified, and that referral of cases to chiefs of the police had posted a message about in interest from several news media. by mixed poisoning, partly as a result of he- tion with a decision by the police that her it is to the police that the family of the de- police or directors of special the death on Twitter and had provided de- roin consumption. deceased daughter was to be subjec- ceased must state its views on the questi- tailed information to the press before noti- It is known that, after notification of the ted to an autopsy (see section 13-2 of the on of autopsy. It was not stated in the po- bodies for administrative fying the family of the deceased. The per- press, several hours had elapsed before the During the Bureau’s investigation of the in- Prosecution Instructions). The mother had lice’s duty log or in the report concerning assessment. son who reported the matter told that he police in accordance with current routines cident, it was found that some of the cell been present at the death of the daughter, the matter that the family of the deceased had been notified by the police during the had formally notified the family concerning inspections conducted before midnight who had been chronically sick. Shortly after had been notified that the police would re- afternoon that his father had been taken the deceased. In the Bureau’s assessment, had not been entered in the log by the the death, the deceased person’s gene- quest an autopsy. into custody for drunkenness, and that he it was unfortunate and censurable that the person conducting them, but by a person ral practitioner had told the police that the would be looked after. Approximately six police had given detailed information con- who was on duty later. This was assessed deceased was known to be sick and that Although section 13-3 of the Prosecution In- hours after being notified, the complainant cerning the incident to the press before en- by the Bureau as censurable. The investi- it was not surprising that she had died. The structions does not require notification of read in an article on the Internet that a suring that the family of the deceased, with gation left some uncertainty with regard to mother pointed out in the report that she the family of the deceased, the provision man the same age as his father had been whom they had already been in contact­ the length of time that the deceased had had not been notified by the police that an clearly indicates that this should be done arrested for intoxication and had later concerning arrest of the man, were noti- been sitting asleep in the same position be- autopsy had been requested. She had only in situations where conditions so permit. It is been found dead in the custody facility. He fied of the death. In the situation, there had fore he was found to have stopped bre- been informed of this by the undertaker. also the Bureau’s assessment that the po- found it completely incomprehensible that been no reasons for informing the public athing. The Bureau pointed out with refe- lice must ensure documentation that no- the police in this situation had notified the before the family of the deceased. rence to the letter of 28 April 2009 from the The Bureau took a statement from the tification has been given, and that the fa- press before notifying the family of the de- Norwegian Police Directorate to the chiefs ­police lawyer who had requested the au- mily of the deceased have been given the ceased, particularly in view of the fact that Although there were grounds for criticising­ of police that the custody log must be used topsy. The lawyer told that, when making opportunity to state their views. Although the police had been in contact with him the procedure adopted by the police, actively to enable subsequent documenta- the request, he had been of the opinion­ there was reason to criticise the procedu- earlier the same day concerning his fath- ­grounds were not found for criminal liability. tion of observations and assessments made that the death had occurred suddenly and re adopted by the police, the fact that the er’s situation. He regarded it as extremely The case was dropped on the ground that in connection with the inspections. unexpectedly. He could not remember police had not acted in accordance with censurable that the information to the me- no criminal offence was deemed proven. whether the report concerning the ­matter the provision of section 13-3 of the Prose- dia had been so detailed that the relatives The chief of police was requested to follow Video surveillance of the cells functioned, had been finished at the time he wrote the cution Instructions was not assessed as re- of the deceased had easily been able to up the incident administratively. but the recording functionality had not autopsy request. The lawyer told that he sulting in criminal liability. The case was identify the deceased. The reported police 42 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 43 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

Continued

basis for assessing risk factors, including the patrol’s possibility of stopping in or- der to avoid hitting obstacles on the road. Rekon’s report did not give grounds for

2014 completely setting aside the risk assessment ADMINISTRATIVE of the driver of the patrol car. On the basis of the result of the investigati- on, the Bureau considered there to be re- ASSESSMENTS asonable doubt regarding whether the driver of the patrol car had driven careles-

ACTIVITIES sly. However, it was the Bureau’s view that, when weighing up between the need for IN 2014 the patrol to resolve its task and the regard for traffic safety, the patrol should have gi- ven up pursuit. Regard for those working in the area should have been ascribed grea- ter weight than the possibility of stopping a dropped on the ground that no criminal speed and refusing to stop. In the view of speeding motorcyclist. The Pursuit through ­offence was deemed proven. the company, the police had acted in a the road works had entailed a risk of inju- manner that had endangered the lives of ry, and was not considered a proportio- that she had experienced the use of time public prosecutors and chiefs of police, The Bureau requested that the case be re- the asphalt workers. The road works had nal measure for stopping and arresting the by the police as a considerable strain, that which states that rape cases are to be gi- viewed administratively, and pointed out been well signalled and there had been motorcyclist. For the driver of the patrol car, she had gradually lost confidence in the ven priority and, when there is a shortage that it could be questioned whether suffici- manual traffic direction at the point of en- the case was dropped pursuant to secti- processing and felt that her case had been of resources, are to be given precedence. ent information had been obtained con- try to the area. Passage through the area on 31, first paragraph, cf. section 3, of the given low priority. The Director of Public Prosecutions’ circular cerning the case when it was decided to had only been permitted in single file esco- Road Traffic Act and section 325 (1) of the of 16 October 2009 on sound and video request an autopsy. It was further pointed rted by a pilot car. The highest permitted Penal Code owing to insufficient evidence. The police officer apologised for the dila- recording of statements states that sum- out that it was not deemed that the mat- speed in the area had been 50 kilometres The case was forwarded to the director of tory processing of the case, which he said maries of interviews should be presented to ter had been dealt with in accordance per hour. When the patrol car had passed the Central Mobile Police Force for admi- was unfortunately not unusual. During the the person interviewed within two weeks of with the provision of section 13-3 of the Pro- the road works sign, it had been driving at nistrative follow-up. The Central Mobile Po- period concerned, there had been several the interview at the latest. secution Instructions. The case was viewed approximately 140 kilometres per hour. Whi- lice Force officers involved in the case told violent rapes, and he had had a considera- as providing a basis for experiential lear- le driving through the road works, its speed that they had not been aware in advance ble burden of work. Since the woman’s re- In the view of the Bureau, the result of the ning. The mother of the deceased appea- had varied and at the highest had been that there were extensive road works in the port concerned an offence that had oc- investigation did not provide grounds for led to the Director of Public Prosecutions 130 kilometres per hour. area concerned. The Bureau asked wheth- curred three years previously, her case had such strong criticism of the police officer against the Bureau’s decision not to pro- er such knowledge should not be a factor been given lower priority. The police officer that his conduct could be found subject to secute. The Director of Public Prosecutions The driver of the patrol car told that his in the planning of the video car service. pointed out that he had other time-consu- penalty. The chief of police was requested upheld the decision not to prosecute and assignment was to stop serious traffic ming responsibilities. As well as being the to follow up the case administratively. endorsed the decision that the case should offenders, and he had therefore not wished LONG CASE PROCESSING TIME sex crimes coordinator, he worked turns of be followed up administratively by the po- to give up pursuit of the motorcyclist. In – REPORT OF RAPE duty for the uniformed branch and was a lice district. his view, the pursuit was conducted in Salten police district driving instructor. The senior prosecutor told a manner that did not endanger other A woman who had reported a rape to the the Bureau that the chief of police and the TURN-OUT AND PURSUIT THROUGH ROAD people’s lives. police subsequently reported a police of- management group were aware that the WORKS ficer for allowing her case to lie unproces- unit to which the police officer was atta- Salten police district The Bureau took a number of statements, sed. From the date that the woman had ched had for some time had too limited re- An asphalting company reported a Cen- and obtained from the patrol and from one given a sound and video recorded sta- sources. tral Mobile Police Force patrol for speed- of the construction vehicles video recor- tement to the police officer, almost eight ing and careless driving through an area of dings showing parts of the driving. The en­ months had elapsed until the summary of In its assessment of the case, the Bureau road works. The patrol had been pursuing a gineering firm of Rekon AS was requested the police interview had been made av- drew attention to the Director of Public Pro- motorcyclist who had been driving at high to review the case in order to provide a ailable to her for review. The woman told secutions’ circular of 8 November 2013 to 44 Director of the Norwegian Bureau 45 for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

THE BUREAU’S MANAGEMENT GROUP

The bureau´s ORGANISATION AND STAFFING

Jan Egil Presthus Guro Glærum Kleppe Liv Øyen Halvor Hjelm-Hansen Ellen Eikeseth Mjøs Administratively subordinate to the Civil Director of the Deputy Director of the Head of Investigation Head of Investigation Head of Investigation Professionally subordinate to Affairs Department of the Ministry of Norwegian Bureau for Norwegian Bureau for Division East Norway. Division Mid Norway Division West Norway. the Director of Public Prosecutions Justice and Public Security the Investigation of the Investigation of and North Norway. Lawyer on assignment. Police Affairs. Police Affairs. Lawyer on assignment.

Director of the Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs PERSONS ON ASSIGNMENT

In addition to the permanent employees, 11 persons are engaged on assignment in processing of

Investigation Division Investigation Division Investigation Division cases by the Bureau. The assignment arrangement underlines the independence of the Bureau, West Norway East Norway Mid Norway and North Norway and fosters transparency and trust. Engagements on assignment are made for three years at a time, and may not be held for more than two periods, i.e. a maximum of six years.

Ronald Eriksen Brevik Audun Lillestølen Trond Eirik Aansløkken Tone Bergan Jørn Mejdell Jakobsen The Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police The Bureau has 36 permanent employees, of which 17 Lawyer and partner in Lawyer and partner in Lawyer in Kindem & Co. Specialist in psychology Lawyer in own law firm. Affairs was established on 1 January 2005 for the purpose are investigators. In addition, 11 persons are engaged on Riisa & Co. the law firm LYNX. at the University of of investigating cases where employees of the police or assignment. The Bureau is organised on two levels, one level Bergen. prosecuting authority are suspected of committing criminal for investigation and one level for overall management. offences in the course of duty. The Bureau is not part of The Director of the Bureau, who has overall responsibility Eirik Nåmdal Kai Stephansen Tor Erik Heggøy Odd Rune Torstrup the police, but an independent body administratively for activities and decides on prosecutions in all cases, Lawyer in the law firm Lawyer and Partner and lawyer in Lawyer in the law subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security is located in Hamar. The Bureau has three investigation Turid Mæland. partner in the law firm the law firm Tenden. community Torstrup og and professionally subordinate to the Director of Public divisions, which are located in Hamar/Oslo, Trondheim, and Strand & Co. Grøsfjeld. Prosecutions. Bergen. 46 Director of the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs Annual Report 2014

BRIEF NOTES ON SOME OF THE BUREAU’S EMPLOYEES ARTICLES FROM PREVIOUS ANNUAL REPORTS

2008 2010 2012 • Protection of Civil Society • The Police Operations Centre • The Police and the Public • The Bureau Tries a Case through Three • The Police’s Duty of Activity when a • The Decision to Search Terje Storrø Kristine Schilling Vigdis Thomassen Aaseth Judicial Instances – Use of Force Person is Deprived of their Liberty • Documenting Seizure, Search and Special Investigator from 2005 Legal Adviser from 2014 Adviser – finance and personnel during Arrest • Misuse of Register Data Examination in connection with from 2005 • Performance of Police Duties – When • The Use of Blunt Physical Force by the Committal to Custody Graduated from the National Police Law degree from the University of Oslo, Degree in Civil Service Administration Is It Punishable? Police • Strip Search of Persons under Arrest Academy in 1987. Experience from Hel- 1995, and LL.M. degree from the Univer- and Financial Management from the • Frequent breaches of confidentiality • Sexual Involvement between Police • Breach of the Duty of Secrecy geland police district and Sør-Trøndelag sity of Kiel, 1996. Experience as assistant Norwegian Business School. Experience • High-Speed Vehicle Pursuits and Officers and Parties in Criminal Cases • The Detainee’s Right to be Heard police district. lawyer, deputy judge, lawyer with own of clerical and accounting work for Shunting • The Duty to Register Crime Reports • Correct Use of Handcuffs – Seeing the legal practice and as acting district various private companies and as an • Corruption Is Harmful to Society Unique in the Usual court judge at Bergen District Court. executive officer at the Norwegian National Rail Administration. • Reports of Racism 2011 • Police Action against Foreign Beggars • Police Use of Handcuffs • Deprivation of Position by Court • The Duty of the Police to Inform Judgment • The Duty of the Police to Deal with 2009 • Documenting Decisions in Criminal Dangerous Situations • Detaining in Custody – Incidents Cases Involving Persons in Police Custody • Police Corruption in Norway 2013 • Corporate Penalties • The Conduct of Police Employees • Analysis of Cases Concerning • Processing Time • The Use of Police Signature in Private Use of Force • The Swedish National Police-Related Contexts • Information Leaks from the Police Crime Unit • Incidents during Detention to the Media • Can Criminal Offences in the Police • Discipline in communications be Prevented? • Status in Interviews with the Bureau • Arrest - et inngripende tiltak • Custody – an Invasive Measure • The Requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding Report of Search • Photographing/Videoing Police Performing their Duties • Police Management

Knut Wold Hanne Brenden Anita Rundsveen Investigative Prosecutor from 2006 ICT Adviser from 2009 Special Investigator from 2005

Law degree from the University of Oslo, Holds a college degree in engineering Graduated from the National Police 1992. Experience as an assistant lawyer, from Bergen University College from Academy in 1988. Experience from the junior police prosecutor, deputy jud- 1997. Experience as an ICT consultant at Norwegian Police Security Service, the ge and as an executive officer in the Hedmark Central Hospital and Sykehuset Central Mobile Police Service and Hor- Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Children Innlandet HF. daland police district. and Family Affairs, the Norwegian Animal Health Authority and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. The Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs Telephone: +47 62 55 61 00 Telefax: +47 62 55 61 01 E-mail: [email protected] Postal address: PO Boks 93, 2301 Hamar

Investigation Division East Norway Visiting address: Grønnegata 82, Hamar Visiting address: Kirkegata 1-3, Oslo

Investigation Division West Norway Visiting address: Slottsgaten 3, Bergen

Investigation Division Mid-Norway og North Norway Visiting address: Kongens gate 30, Trondheim

The divisional offices are staffed by investigators who are often out on assignment. Visitors should therefore make appointments in advance. All the divisions can be contacted on the given telephone number and e-mail address given above. www.spesialenheten.no