Anna Bråten (65) was assaulted in broad daylight after the Remig. conference at Håndverkeren in Oslo two weeks ago. The man suddenly attacks and repeatedly strikes Anna Bråten. Lars Thorsen has the spray ready, and the man is sprayed in the face with red marking spray. The police have now dismissed the complaint.
The letter from the police, dated 24 June, states:
The case has been dismissed because the act was provoked or retaliatory, or because, in view of the criminal standard of proof, this cannot in any event be ruled out, cf. Section 271, second paragraph, of the Penal Code.
Anna Bråten immediately submitted a shocked appeal: What is meant by “provoked”?
There is exceptionally strong documentation that leaves no room for any conclusion other than that this was a one-sided, aggressive assault in broad daylight, without any prior provocation of a kind that could justify exemption from criminal liability.
From the police’s dismissal letter, it is apparent that the police did not interview the perpetrator of the assault, Kim Andre Danielsen Næss. Nor did they interview Anna Bråten as the injured party in the case. How, then, can the police reach a conclusion about the “state of the evidence”?
From the wording of the decision, it is obvious that the police did not interview the assailant. Nor did they take a statement from me. It is therefore remarkable that the decision suggests that the evidence is weak.
From the complaint filed on 14 June:
After attending an event organised by a political party on 13 June 2026, the undersigned was walking in a group of five from Håndverkeren towards the Storting. Outside Rosenkrantz gate 11, at 20:23, I was attacked by a political assailant, who struck me and thereby committed the criminal offence of bodily violation.
Twelve still images from a GoPro camera are attached. As can be seen from the first image, Næss is standing on the corner by Eilifs, waiting for a suitable victim to emerge from the meeting venue. He follows us for approximately 100 metres down the street before attacking. We had no prior acquaintance with the individual.
Bråten and Thorsen have a longer video recording of the assault. The police have not asked to see it. In that recording, Næss says something.
There is no legal basis for exempting a violent offender from punishment on the grounds that he has heard a political message that he dislikes. If the police believe otherwise, this must be clarified and supported with legal authorities during the appeals process. As stated in the complaint, this type of politically motivated violence is an aggravating factor.
The prosecuting lawyer responsible for the case is Jonas Andre Fosaas.
The police officers who guarded the conference conducted themselves exemplary.