Document became the main character when lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen objected to our presence at a court case in Hamar concerning a school fire in Løten. Larsen launched a frontal attack, listing rulings against us by the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU) and assuming that we would not respect the reporting restrictions in the case. However, many other media outlets were present, and they protested against the attempt to exclude Document.

For what will happen the next time a defence lawyer has an objection to a media outlet? Can that lawyer use their client as a spearhead? That was what Larsen did. She said her client would not give evidence if Document was present.

But the press as a whole – NRK, Hamar Arbeiderblad, Østlendingen – said they could not accept that. All or none.

An important principle was at stake, and the media understood it.

A decision to exclude Document would certainly have been followed up by the press organisations afterwards. Screening the media could establish a precedent, and who knows who might know how to use such a weapon in the future?

After much back and forth, Judge Løhren Hess decided that editor-controlled media could cover the case subject to reporting restrictions, but that the press would be shown the door when the defendants were to give evidence. They are minors.

The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, but a request for suspensive effect was rejected so that the conduct of the trial would not be delayed.

In a ruling on 14 July, the District Court had granted editor-controlled media access to cover the case, subject to restrictions. When the defendants were to give evidence, the press would follow their testimony from an adjoining room.

That was not what happened. Document’s presence resulted in the press being prevented from following the defendants’ testimony.

The reason things turned out this way is not that the press has suddenly developed a liking for Document. It is because the press is aware of its role in court proceedings. They are the public’s ears and eyes. They are a guarantee that the case will be thoroughly scrutinised.

We ourselves were pleasantly surprised by this adherence to principle on the part of the press. When the situation demands it, they put disagreements aside and recognise what the issue is really about.

Mette Yvonne Larsen, by contrast, followed in Gaute Skjervø’s footsteps. She should have acknowledged that there was nothing she could do about Document being present. We are editor-controlled media and members of the Norwegian Editors’ Association.

That entails obligations and it is formative. We received an object lesson in the role of the press in practice. The press defended its role. Mette Yvonne Larsen attacked it.

Larsen did not hold back when characterising Document. Is this how we want things to be? That politicians and lawyers can throw out media outlets they do not like?

Yes, answered Skjervø. Yes, answered Dagsrevyen. Absolutely, maintained Mette Yvonne Larsen.

– No, answered the press. Too much is at stake. We cannot sacrifice the principle of open justice because someone cannot stand the sight of part of the press.

A victory for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

We learnt something in Hamar District Court today about inalienable values.

https://www.nrk.no/innlandet/skader-for-48_5-millioner-kroner-da-loten-ungdomsskole-brant-_-ungdommer-moter-i-retten-1.17992012