– “You didn’t want another Hamse Ali case,” claims parliamentary candidate Dag-Øyvind Lauvnes of the Norwegian Democrats in a complaint relating to two police cases in Kristiansand.
The complaints are based on insights Lauvnes has gained into the police’s work through police documents.
The first case concerns physical attacks he was subjected to by two left-wing activists whilst manning a campaign stand for the Norwegian Democrats in August 2025 and the stand was robbed.
Lauvnes writes:
Case: 16910847
This case was dismissed on 5 May 2026. I appealed against the dismissal, and in August I was granted access to the case file and given the opportunity to ask questions. The file revealed that not a single investigative step had been taken, despite the fact that I had submitted a wealth of evidence and the personal details of the two independent witnesses.
The two witnesses arrived at the scene whilst one of their colleagues was questioning me about the attack I had been subjected to. The names and telephone numbers of both were provided in the police report.
I filmed the interview their colleague conducted with me at the scene, as well as when the two young women [the witnesses, ed.] arrived and told both me and their colleague what had happened. A video of this was attached to the police report.In addition, I attached a newspaper article in which one of the perpetrators, in an interview with a journalist from *Fædrelandsvennen*, admitted both to the offences and that the attack had been planned several hours in advance. So here you have one of the perpetrators herself stating that they attacked a parliamentary candidate at a campaign stand during the election campaign – in other words, with intent.
You therefore do not need to prove intent; she served it up on a silver platter.
Furthermore, you have access to all the CCTV cameras on Markens gate (and other cameras in the city), but you have apparently chosen not to retrieve this information, despite the fact that the officer who interviewed me at the scene said it was standard procedure in such cases. This is particularly true when a politician is subjected to violence, and in this instance, a premeditated, politically motivated attack.
You have therefore been presented with a straightforward case with ample evidence, as well as a confession from one of the perpetrators, making a conviction seem like a walk in the park.
When we also take into account that the PST and the police have for several years stated that threats and violence against politicians are at the top of their list of priorities, I find it difficult to view the decision to drop the case on the basis of the ‘state of the evidence’ as anything other than a deliberate choice. Either based on an ideological understanding of reality, or because you have received orders (or ‘guidance’, as it is called these days) from higher up not to proceed with the case.
You can easily disprove me on this point by doing your job.
The second complaint concerns a counter-report filed by the two people Lauvnes reported for assault, as the police did not open a case themselves:
Case: 16911879
I also requested access to this case this summer, and visited the police station in Kristiansand. There, I read the statements made by the two perpetrators. The first statement contained several easily verifiable falsehoods – particularly as you have video footage of parts of the incident, as well as the statements given by the two young women, all on the same video.
Blood was flowing when the ND politician sustained injuries to his arm, hand and fingers during last year’s election campaign. (Photo: Private)
The second statement they submitted was also full of falsehoods. This, of course, came after they realised they risked being sentenced to several years in prison for politically motivated violence against a parliamentary candidate, and so they did what they could to avoid it.
In the letter I received from you on 2 September, which was a reply to questions I asked whilst reading through the documents, you stated that you did not open a case because of some words written on the perpetrators’ letterbox and doorbell.
Both you and I understood immediately who was behind it – it was the married couple. You do not want another ‘Hamse Ali case’, and therefore chose not to open a case on that basis.
I believe this is the same reason why you did not prioritise investigating this case. You realised that the perpetrators were lying in their initial statement, which would have meant you would have had to bring charges for giving false evidence.
Taken together, there are half a dozen sections of the Criminal Code under which you could possibly have convicted them.
Document has previously reported that there is strong evidence to suggest the police failed to investigate:
Political attack during gay pride parade was probably never investigated
Furthermore, you wrote in your letter that you were unable to investigate all cases, and that the public prosecutor agreed with these assessments. However, as mentioned above, the PST and the police themselves have stated that threats and violence against politicians are given the highest priority. In a conversation with one of the secretaries at the public prosecutor’s office, she used the same line of reasoning, but fell silent when I pointed out that the PST and the police themselves have said that this is among their highest priorities. Even she understood that this excuse does not hold water.
Furthermore, I would like to include a couple of quotes from the attached documents, so that everyone reading this text can gain an understanding of the situation at Kristiansand Police Station and the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the South.
Quote from Police Inspector Dahl:
It is the police’s assessment that the facts of this case have not been sufficiently clarified. It is noted that the two victims in the case have their version of the facts, whilst the suspect – that is, the complainant – has a different one. There is no video footage or independent witnesses (to the best of the police’s knowledge) who can shed light on which of the parties’ accounts is correct.
Document has previously reported that the police ignored witness statements that supported the politician’s version of events:
Kristiansand police ignore witness statements: ‘No independent witnesses’
Lauvnes continues:
As highlighted, Dahl claims that, to the best of the police’s knowledge, there are no independent witnesses or video footage. But just to reiterate: the report contains the names and telephone numbers of the women who arrived when one of their colleagues was taking my statement. You were also sent a video in which the two young women describe what they saw, and in which one of them filmed the attack. Part of this video is included in what I sent.
Dahl is therefore lying to the public prosecutor.
Document has contacted Police Inspector Stine Veslemøy Dahl for comment.
The public prosecutor is upholding this lie, which suggests that she has not reviewed the documents. Had she done so, she would have immediately seen that Dahl is lying.
Quote from Public Prosecutor Beate Rullestad-Jansen:
I uphold the police’s decision to dismiss the case, and the complaint is not upheld. Reference is made to the police’s reasoning in doc. 01.01, which fully supports the Public Prosecutor’s view, and with which I concur.
In conclusion, Lauvnes asks the Agder police to investigate the violence against him, or alternatively to refer the case to the Public Prosecutor.
The case concerning the left-wing activists’ allegedly false statements is being referred directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions for assessment.
Police prosecutor Tove Haugland has previously told *Document* that the police believe the cases have been handled ‘in an adequate and correct manner’, a view she justifies by pointing out that the Southern Public Prosecutor’s Office supported the police’s position in a previous round of appeals.
Background:
Police drop the case after Prideactivists attacked a parliamentarycandidate
