Relief Requested in terms of General Statement of Principles: (2) Correction of inaccuracy & (3) Publishing responses
[1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement.
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariaty for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles.
The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar has so far refused to issue a Case Number for the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
[2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA)
The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of aforementioned information, that:
(A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court;
(B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing;
(C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen.
Direct Association: Yes. I filed the application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to the Oslo Supreme Court, as well as prior Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) applications to the Oslo District Court, on behalf of Mr. Breivik's sanity.
Contact with Publication: Yes. I contacted Sydney Morning Herald Readers Editor with a Request for a Correction on Sat 9/8/2012 12:29 AM. On Monday, September 10, 2012 9:19 AM, Ms. Judy Prisk, their readers editor responded refusing to publish a correction, or to change the story online, as follows: “We will not be publishing a correction; nor will we change the story online.”
Text of Email:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:15 PM
To: 'AU Press Council'
Cc: 'SMH Reader Editor'
Subject: APC Complaint (2)(3): Lara Johnstone vs. Sydney Morning Herald
Australian Press Council
Suite 10.02, 117 York Street,
Sydney 2000
Fax: (02) 9267-6826
Email: [email protected]
Ref: Judy Prisk
Readers Editor
Sydney Morning Herald
SMH Readers Ed ([email protected])
Dear AU Press Council,
Complaint (PDF) against Sydney Morning Herald: 08 September 2012 Article: No Breivik Appeal as Case Formally Ends:
Relief Requested in terms of General Statement of Principles:
2. Correction of inaccuracy
3. Publishing responses
Error: The case has not ‘formally ended’.
[1] 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement.
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariaty for the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) principles and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles.
The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar has so far refused to issue a Case Number for the Application for Review of the Breivik Judgement, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
Mr. Breivik, his attorneys: Mr. Geir Lippestad and Ms. Baera; and Ms. Siv Hallgren, Ms. Yvonne Mette Larsen and Mr. Frode Elgesem (attorney’s liaison for all attorneys representing victims families), Prosecutors Svein Holden and Inga Bejer Engh are all well aware of the Application for Review.
[2] Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA)
The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of aforementioned information, that:
(A) Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court;
(B) Complaint filed with Parliamentary Ombudsman against Supreme Court, for slow case processing;
(C) Pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen.
Direct Association:
Yes. I filed the application for Review of the Breivik Judgement to the Oslo Supreme Court, as well as prior Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) applications to the Oslo District Court, on behalf of Mr. Breivik's sanity.
Contact with Publication:
Yes. I contacted Sydney Morning Herald Readers Editor with a Request for a Correction on Sat 9/8/2012 12:29 AM. On Monday, September 10, 2012 9:19 AM, Ms. Judy Prisk, their readers editor responded refusing to publish a correction, or to change the story online, as follows: “We will not be publishing a correction; nor will we change the story online.”
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Encl:
[A] Email Correspondence: 12-09-09 AU-Press-Council
[B] Documentation submitted to Sydney Morning Herald:
(i) 12-09-07: Sydney Morning Herald: Request for Correction of Inaccuracy
(ii) 12-09-03: Supervisory Committee for Judges Issuance of Case Number for Complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen, in response to Parliamentary Ombudsman complaint of slow case processing
(iii) 12-08-27: Application for Review of Breivik Judgement to Norway Supreme Court, including complaint of slow case processing to Parliamentary Ombudsman.