Agder police spent eight months on a case concerning violence and criminal damage directed at the Democrats of Norway in Kristiansand. Only now has it emerged that the police probably did not investigate the case.

County chairman and parliamentary candidate Dag-Øyvind Lauvnes reported a married couple for assault after a theft from the party’s election campaign stand escalated when Lauvnes attempted to recover the stolen property.

The couple, who according to video footage and filmed witness statements were behind the theft and violence, filed a counter-report claiming that Lauvnes was the violent party.

Both cases were dropped due to insufficient evidence. Lauvnes maintains that he broke no law and therefore appealed against the fact that the grounds for dropping the case against him were not no criminal offence committed.

Public prosecutor Beate Rullestad-Jansen at the Southern Norway Public Prosecutor’s Office upheld the grounds for dropping the case, with no further right of appeal, despite the fact that both the witnesses and the video footage that Lauvnes demonstrably submitted together with his report were ignored.

The public prosecutor endorsed the police’s description:

[…] Reference is made to the fact that the two complainants in the case have their version of events, while the suspect, that is, the appellant, has another. There is no video or independent witnesses (to the knowledge of the police) that can shed light on which party’s account is correct.

No investigation or interviews

When Lauvnes requested access to the police documents, he was allowed to view them at the police station, without being permitted to take a copy with him.

– There was nothing in the papers about investigative steps, interviews or other measures one would expect the police to take in such a case, Lauvnes says.

The employee who provided the papers told Lauvnes that what he was shown was everything registered in the system.

– If they were not lying and withholding any documents, then they merely registered the reports from me and the far-left married couple, without doing anything further until they dropped the cases.

Julia Dorota Bergmann, senior adviser in the communications staff at Agder Police District, confirms that Document’s questions have been forwarded to the lawyer responsible for the case.

A few weeks after the incident in Kristiansand, the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) told the media that more politicians than before had been subjected to threats during this year’s election campaign.

– It is serious that threats are made during an election campaign. It is a threat to our democracy, PST senior adviser Erik Veum said at the time.

Political stand described as ‘hateful’

Lauvnes was also allowed to read the report filed against him and says that it is full of lies:

– After the married couple saw that they were coming off badly on social media and at Document, among others, they came up with a new account on 27 August last year. By then they had suddenly acquired a witness who had not been mentioned previously, Lauvnes says.

He believes the video he submitted as evidence disproves the allegations in the report against him.

The information has been put to the married couple for comment.

– The married couple must have used the word ‘hateful’ ten times or more in the report. It was hateful of us to stand there at our stand with our signs.

In their supplementary statement, the couple are said to have claimed that someone had written ‘DIE’, ‘SAMI’ and ‘NIGGER’ on their postbox. The woman is of Sami descent, and her husband is of African background.

At the police station, Lauvnes was allowed to write questions for the investigators on a sheet of paper in order to find out why there were no signs of an investigation.

– I asked them why they had not taken any investigative steps when they had received so much evidence and information about independent witnesses, and why, in addition, they could not have spoken to their colleague who took my witness statement at the scene. This is the police officer who appears in the video. I also referred to the fact that PST and the police have said that threats and violence against politicians should be given high priority.

Lauvnes further asked why the police had not brought charges against the married couple for making a false statement, since, in the politician’s view, the witness video demonstrates that they are lying in their report.

– Finally, I asked why they had not provided the public prosecutor with information about the independent witnesses I had told them about.

Lauvnes hopes for an answer, but assumes that nothing in particular will happen.

– Based on how they have handled these cases, I will probably report them for gross dereliction of duty, he says.