The number one Norwegian newspaper VG has as its front page story today that the judge Carl Hugo Lund, who, among other cases, precided over the proceedings against the police officer accused of involuntary manslaughter of former Norwegian Helsinki Committee employee Tomasz Wazcko, has been reprimanded for his arrogance and sarcasms in court, especially against the prosecutor. Lund?s behaviour may have affected the jurisdiction in some of his cases. (13-DEC-04)
It is an institutionalised watchdog for judges that has now openly criticised Lund for his repeatedly unacceptable remarks and behaviour. -I have already apologised for two or three of my remarks to the prosecution. Beyond that, I acknowledge the points the watchdog is making and appreciate the need for such a body within our system. We do need feedback, being a judge can be solitary work. Also, you make decisions that are not popular among everyone. On being asked if he has made it a habit to be arrogant and sarcastic in court, Lund replied that saying so would be to exaggerate. -I am an active judge and like to command the court actively. Among other things, that means I may interrupt while others are talking. In addition, I guess I am a little ironic. In being like that, I risk being criticised.
-This case is beginning to resemble a parody
The watchdog, however, makes it clear that it is absolutely unacceptable for the head of proceedings to be, through entire cases, both arrogant and sarcastic. It is incompatible with good judging tradition to say what Lund has said. The watchdog particularly refers to Lund’s intimidating behaviour in the case against the policeman accused of involuntary manslaughter of Tomasz Wazcko, a former employee of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, one of the organisations working out of the Human Rights House in Oslo. In this case, Lund criticised the prosecutor “for being on another planet”, “for asking such unbelievably poor questions, that’s the problem”, and for having prepared poorly. Lund also described the entire case, in which both the bereaved family and many of Wazcko’s former colleagues were present, for “beginning to resemble a parody”.
Ruling by intimidation, obscuring the truth
From this and other cases, Lund has built a reputation as such a bully that a growing number of prosecutors now refuse to take on cases in which he will procede. That, says the watchdog, is more than serious. The high profile lawyer Tor Erling Staff, who represented the bereaved family, adds that he himself considered filing a complaint during the very same case, for the exact same reasons. -I felt that the judge ‘was after’ the prosecutor. I considered raising this as a particular issue in court, but decided against it. Instead, Staff protocolled an ordinary protest against the judge for not being allowed sufficient time to make his points during a cross-examination. Staff was interrupted so much that he couldn’t make himself as clear as he would have liked to.
Judge over judges feels the boomerang effect
Ironically, Lund himself concluded, after a six-months sabbatical four years ago to study the behaviour of judges in court, that “many judges behave like ‘shitbags’ (‘drittsekker’) towards the accused in court. Even celebrity lawyers are servile and dare not complain – they’re afraid of possible acts of revenge from the judges. Lawyers and prosecutors often get so obsessed with legal formalities that they forget about the accused”. Lund’s remarks in the particular case highlighted was directed against prosecutor hans Jørgen Bender, who says that he has since lceared the air with Lund and has no wish to add more fuel to the fire. Even so, in a letter to the same watchdog, Bender and his boss Lasse Qvigstad, criticise Lund in no unmistakable manner. “What is special about Lund’s style of heading the proceedings is his sarcastic form and arrogant remarks. This combined with repeated interruptions made it difficult for the prosecution to carry the case through the way it had intended to do so”.
Norwegian Helsinki Committee also blames the judge
After the case was closed, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee filed a letter making very similar complaints to those now presented by the official watchdog. This letter is now brought to the media?s attention again. NRK, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, also covers the story today. Bjørn Engesland, the Secretary General of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, said immediately after the case ended with a total dismissal of the accusations and thus no legal consequences for the accused, that “the judge did a poor job. Our opinion is that a case like this needs as good a legal procedure as possible in court. We do not feel that this was the case here. Instead, we fear that we have not been allowed to hear all relevant information from the witnesses”. Engesland explicitly blamed the judge for this.
