The Norwegian ‘hitman’ trial has ended in a hung jury. A mistrial. Eleven weeks of testimony, 200 witnesses, and a mountain of forensic evidence. All for nothing. Or so it seems.
British legal observers, embedded in the Oslo courtroom, are whispering about procedural flaws. Something about the judge’s instructions. A misinterpretation of the burden of proof. The defence team, they say, played a blinder. Exploited a loophole in Norwegian law. The prosecution is fuming. The victim’s family is devastated.
Let’s rewind. The accused, a 34-year-old former soldier, was alleged to have been hired to kill a prominent businessman. A contract killing. Shady deals. A tangled web of financial disputes. The prosecution built a circumstantial case. Phone records. Bank transfers. A suspicious meeting in a car park. But no smoking gun. No direct evidence.
The defence ripped it apart. They pointed to inconsistencies in witness testimony. A former associate changed his story three times. The alleged getaway driver had an alibi. The forensic link? Contaminated. The jury, after nine days of deliberation, could not agree. 7-5 in favour of conviction. Not enough. Under Norwegian law, a unanimous verdict is required for guilt. A hung jury means a retrial. Or a deal. The defence is already pushing for a plea bargain. The prosecution is resisting.
British eyes are watching closely. This case has echoes of the ‘Torshov Trial’ back in 2018. Same defence team. Same tactics. That trial also ended in a mistrial. The accused walked free after a retrial collapsed. The system, critics say, is broken. Too lenient. Too procedural. The Labour party in the UK has already used this as a stick to beat the Tories. ‘Soft on crime,’ they say. ‘Look at Norway.’
But the real story is the power dynamics. Who is pulling the strings? The judge, a known reformist, has been criticised for being too hands-off. The defence team, funded by a mysterious offshore trust, has deep pockets. The prosecution, underfunded and overworked, is struggling to keep up. Leaks from the justice ministry suggest the government is panicking. A change in the law is being drafted. But it’s too late for this case.
The next move is crucial. The retrial will be scheduled for next year. The defence will try to delay. The prosecution will push for a fast-track. The victim’s family, meanwhile, is considering a civil suit. And the accused? He remains in custody, but his lawyers are applying for bail. A risky move. If he flees, it’s a scandal. If he stays, it’s a PR win.
This story is far from over. The procedural flaws will be dissected in the legal journals. The political fallout will be felt in Westminster. The Tories will blame the Labour-supporting legal establishment. Labour will blame the Tories’ cuts to legal aid. The usual dance. But for the man at the centre of it all, a former soldier with a dark past, the waiting game continues. The jury didn’t decide. But the game goes on.
