A 33-year-old Uyghur living in Arendal has been convicted of sharing and uploading 57 files depicting the sexual abuse of children. On Monday, Agder District Court sentenced him to community service. The court considers the police’s own inaction to be part of the reason.

The man, who was born in 1992, made an unreserved confession in court. He was convicted under Section 311, first paragraph, of the Penal Code.

The material was shared via the KIK chat platform between 20 and 26 June 2024, and again on 7 August 2025. Of the 57 files, 36 are videos. The court describes the content as follows:

‘Most of the files show young girls of primary-school age who are naked and/or engaging in sexual activity with themselves, other children and/or adults.’

The case began with reports from the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The police received the report on 11 September 2024.

Then nothing happened.

It was not until 5 June 2026 – nearly 21 months later – that the man was summoned for questioning. He did not know that he had been reported until then. The court finds that there was formally no delay contrary to the Convention under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), because it was only upon the summons that there was a ‘criminal charge’. Nevertheless, the police’s slowness had a direct bearing on the sentence.

The prosecution sought 90 days’ immediate imprisonment. The defence requested community service.

The court set the starting point higher than the prosecution’s submission: 120 days’ immediate imprisonment. The material is described as ‘extremely serious’, and the court regarded it as an aggravating factor that he shared the files with another user in a private chat. His unreserved confession during his first police interview resulted in a 30 per cent reduction in sentence, bringing it down to 90 days.

Nevertheless, the court then changed the form of punishment. The general rule in serious cases involving sexual abuse material is immediate imprisonment, and considerations of general deterrence carry considerable weight. Community service may be imposed only ‘in very exceptional cases’.

Deputy Judge Marthe Holm considers that such circumstances are present here.

The court points to the length of time since the offences ceased, the man’s explanation that he was in a difficult life situation at the time of the offences, and the fact that he has stabilised over the past year, without committing any new offences. The court considers that imprisonment would be detrimental to a positive development that remains fragile.

The man has responsibility for supporting one child, and the court finds that his cohabiting partner would have considerable difficulty remaining in employment if he were required to serve a prison sentence.

He has also lost his job. The court states that he has been dismissed from his position at Sørlandet Hospital as a result of the case, and that proceedings are under way before the County Governor in which he risks losing his authorisation as a healthcare professional. He is now without work, income or assets, and will in all likelihood have to retrain.

The sentence was set at 90 hours of community service, with 90 days’ imprisonment in default, and a completion period of 120 days. The operative part of the judgment, however, states ‘community service for 90 days’ – contrary to the court’s own determination of the sentence in its reasoning.

The court allows the police’s handling of the case to stand as one of the main pillars of its reasoning:

‘The case remained with the police for a long time without any investigation being initiated, meaning that the case could have been resolved and adjudicated at a much earlier stage.’

The deadline for appeal is two weeks.