On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of Norway ruled that a man who had sold a significant amount of illegal narcotics as part of a criminal network was not eligible for the drug intervention program that other addicts may use in lieu of a prison sentence. The court noted that while persons who are part of criminal networks are not automatically ineligible for drug programs, the drug sale was determined to be linked to the accused’s profit interest and not a result of his drug addiction. (Norwegian Supreme Court Decision HR-2024-420-A, (Case No. 23-149697STR-HRET) ¶ 19, 22, 24.)
Facts of the Case
A man who had sold a large amount of narcotics, while himself addicted to drugs, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment by a district court. On appeal, the court of appeals found that the man was a good candidate for a drug treatment program that would replace his prison sentence. The Norwegian prosecutor appealed this finding to the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 3-7.) The issue before the Supreme Court was therefore whether a prison sentence should be suspended with the special condition of completing a narcotics treatment program under court surveillance in a case where the person is convicted of a serious drug crime. (¶ 2.)
Law
Norwegian law provides that persons who are found guilty of certain drug crimes may, as a part of sentencing, receive court ordered narcotics treatment overseen by the Norwegian courts (known as a narkotikaprogram med domstolskontroll (ND-dom)). The purpose of such a sentence is to “prevent new criminal activity, promote rehabilitation and contribute to strengthening and coordinating the practical help-and treatment options for convicted persons who depend on narcotics, and who are subject to the regulation.” (§1 Forskrift om narkotikaprogram med domstolskontroll [Regulation on Narcotics Treatment Program with Court Control] (FOR FOR-2017-10-20-1650).)
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
While the Supreme Court noted that nothing in the Regulation on Narcotics Treatment Program with Court Control (FOR 2017-10-20-1650) specifically limits narcotic treatment programs from being used in cases of more serious violations of the Norwegian criminal code provision on sales of narcotics, the court argued that the “the general preventive considerations that present themselves in cases of such narcotic violations, mean that the threshold for receiving a narcotics treatment program sentence in practice will be very high.” (Norwegian Supreme Court Decision HR-2024-420-A, at ¶ 17.) The court went on to state that while partial sentencing, i.e. sentencing with a combination of treatment and prison sentence, is possible, the facts in the case did not support this. In this particular case, the defendant was responsible for coordinating the distribution of over 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds) of hashish. (¶ 18.) As a result of the large amount of narcotics, as well as the defendant’s actions while perpetrating the crime, which included actions meant to limit his risk of exposure in the criminal network, the court found that there was not a clear connection between the defendant’s narcotics use and his criminal acts. (¶ 24.) Because of this, the defendant was not the main target for the treatment program. (¶ 24.)
The court considered the individual circumstances of the actions of the defendant since he was incarcerated and found that while he had made positive strides, the facts as presented did not support a finding that sentencing the defendant to treatment was the sentence that would best prevent the defendant from new criminal activity in the future. (¶ 28.) Together with the serious crime for which he was convicted, there were not sufficient grounds, based on the defendant’s personal circumstances, to sentence him to a narcotics treatment program. (¶ 29.) Thus, while a narcotics treatment program may be imposed during sentencing for the sale of larger amounts of narcotics, the threshold for receiving such treatment will be very high and dependent on the individual circumstances and actions of the defendant. (¶¶ 17, 29.)
Elin Hofverberg, Law Library of Congress
June 17, 2024
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.