For the first time since 2012, new experts have examined Anders Behring Breivik. Their report will be crucial when the court decides whether he can be released.
– A completely new psychiatric report will be presented to the court. This has not been done since the trial against Anders Behring Breivik in 2012, says lawyer Øystein Storrvik to NTB.
– It is a thorough report of over a hundred pages. I do not wish to give a summary of it before the trial, but I perceive it as important, says Storrvik when asked if the new experts have gained a significantly different understanding of Breivik through their investigations.
Storrvik is Anders Behring Breivik’s defender when the terror-convicted 45-year-old has his petition for parole examined in Ringerike, Asker, and Bærum District Court next Tuesday. It has been just over a year and a half since Breivik last requested to be released. At that time, the petition was outright rejected in the District Court, and the appeal was not even allowed to be presented to the Court of Appeal.
Anders Behring Breivik is serving a sentence of 21 years of preventive detention with a minimum time of 10 years following the terror massacres at Utøya and the Government Quarter on July 22, 2011. Once the minimum time has expired, a person sentenced to preventive detention has the right to apply for parole theoretically every year.
– He has the right to seek an end to an indeterminate sentence. It is a right he has and a right he is exercising, emphasizes Storrvik.
– Just as dangerous
Central to the court’s consideration is the experts’ assessment of whether Breivik has undergone changes since 2012, whether he is still dangerous, and the risk of him committing new, serious violent crimes if released from prison now. Their declaration does not change the perception of Breivik being just as dangerous today as
– The new declaration does not lead the prosecution to view the question of release any differently. There has not been any change in Breivik that makes us reassess the risk of recidivism now, says state prosecutor Hulda Olsen Karlsdottir to NTB.
Last time Breivik sought release, in January 2022, she dismissed it as a PR stunt and stated that he completely lacked credibility.
Karlsdottir will also this time ask the court to reject Breivik’s petition for parole. In addition to the psychiatric report and risk assessment, she will present deputy director Marit Rossehaug at Ringerike prison as a witness.
The prison has expressed the same stance as the prosecution through its recommendation.
Breivik’s petition for parole was originally scheduled for consideration this summer. It was postponed when it became known that psychologist Inni Rein and attorney Andreas Hjetland with the Office of the Attorney General had begun a private relationship. Rein has conducted risk assessments of Breivik, and Hjetland was the state’s process representative when the judicial system dealt with his second lawsuit for violations of human rights.
As a result of the relationship, the prosecution decided that new experts had to be appointed. Psychiatrist Pia Jorde Løvgren and psychologist specialist Kåre Nonstad will present their report when the court convenes on the second day.
– Until now, internal psychiatrists and psychologists in the prison system have been used to conduct risk assessments of Breivik. This time, it is external experts who have conducted a completely new risk assessment, emphasizes Storrvik.
The terror conviction from 2012 is the basis for the assessment the court will make.
The court has set aside three days to consider Breivik’s petition. Most of the second court day will be devoted to the experts, while the last day is reserved for reading documentation and the parties’ pleadings.
Breivik himself will have three hours for his free explanation and for questioning by the parties. Storrvik emphasizes that he does not know or can predict how Breivik will appear when he enters the courtroom on Tuesday, November 19.
From previous court proceedings, we have seen Breivik make right-wing extremist gestures. The last time he applied for parole, he communicated daily with the press, including through posters with right-wing extremist messages.
The man, who has 77 lives on his conscience, has also indicated affiliation with various right-wing extremist movements and has stated that he now distances himself from violence.
– I do not pay much attention to this. It is preferable that the main proceedings be carried out in the most serious and proper manner possible, says Storrvik.
What are the potential implications of Anders Behring Breivik’s parole hearing on public safety and legal frameworks?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Psychiatric Expert on Anders Behring Breivik’s Parole Hearing
Editor: Good morning, and welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re discussing a highly controversial topic that continues to capture both media and public attention: the upcoming parole request by Anders Behring Breivik. With me is Dr. Sofia Lindholm, a psychiatric expert specializing in criminal psychology. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Lindholm.
Dr. Lindholm: Thank you for having me. It’s an important discussion, especially given the implications it has not just for Breivik, but for broader societal safety and legal frameworks.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Breivik’s parole hearing is scheduled for next week, and for the first time since his trial in 2012, a new team of experts has assessed him. Can you explain what makes this new psychiatric report significant?
Dr. Lindholm: Absolutely. Given the gravity of Breivik’s crimes—his terrorist attacks in 2011 that killed 77 people—any new assessment holds substantial weight. This report is over a hundred pages long and aims to determine whether Breivik has undergone any psychological changes since 2012. The experts will evaluate his current mental state, the potential for recidivism, and ultimately, the risk he poses if released.
Editor: Right. Given the seriousness of his actions and the perception of him as a dangerous figure, what do you think the likely conclusions of this report might be?
Dr. Lindholm: The initial feedback seems to suggest that experts still view him as just as dangerous today as he was during his trial. This aligns with previous assessments where state prosecutor Hulda Olsen Karlsdottir indicated that there’s been no change warranting a reassessment of the risks involved. If the current experts corroborate this view, it could be a strong argument against his release.
Editor: And yet, Breivik’s defense attorney insists he has the right to petition for parole. How does that legal framework operate in such extreme cases?
Dr. Lindholm: The legal framework in Norway allows for individuals sentenced to preventive detention to apply for parole once they have served their minimum time. In Breivik’s case, that means he has the right to apply annually after his minimum sentence of 10 years. However, it’s also the court’s responsibility to ensure public safety, which significantly weighs against the backdrop of his severe crimes.
Editor: You mentioned the importance of public safety. How does the public perception of Breivik affect the judicial process surrounding his parole hearings?
Dr. Lindholm: Public opinion plays a crucial role. Given Breivik’s notoriety and the trauma his actions caused, there is likely immense pressure on the judicial system to err on the side of caution. The public’s fear that Breivik could re-offend, combined with his past actions, often leads to a unanimous call for rejection of his petitions. The court must balance individual rights against the broader implications for society.
Editor: Last year, his request was outright rejected. Do you see any potential changes this time, or do you believe the established views of him as a dangerous individual will hold firm?
Dr. Lindholm: Based on the current information and the consistent stance from both the prosecution and psychiatric assessments, it seems unlikely there will be a significant shift in perspective. A new evaluation does not negate the catastrophic nature of his crimes, nor the public and expert consensus on his danger.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Lindholm, for your insights into this contentious issue. It’s a complex intersection of mental health, legal rights, and public safety that continues to evolve. We’re sure many will be following the developments closely next week.
Dr. Lindholm: Thank you for having me. It’s vital to keep these conversations going as they have far-reaching implications for society.
Editor: That’s all for today’s interview. Stay tuned for more updates on this and other important stories as they unfold. Thank you for watching Time.news.