– She must have remembered wrong – VG

On Friday afternoon, her secretary of state says she must have remembered wrong.

VG can now account for further confusion and new explanations from the Prime Minister’s office about what kind of advice was obtained, and when the Prime Minister himself had access to the notes from the top lawyers in the Ministry of Health and Care Services, via his own office at SMK.

Rejected “follow-up work”

In an interview with VG on Friday morning, shortly after that the police had given Erna Solberg a fine of 20,000 kroner, she flatly denied that the government had assisted her with the understanding of the law while the investigation was ongoing:

“It is also not the case that, while the police have investigated, there has been any follow-up work from the civil service either at SMK or other ministries – apart from handling inquiries from the press, which one must necessarily do, and requests for access,” Solberg said in the interview with VG.

Here you can see the entire interview VG did with Erna Solberg on Friday morning:

Private

Professor Eivind Smith at the University of Oslo, one of Norway’s foremost experts in administrative law, is fundamentally critical of the involvement of lawyers in the government system. He says:

– The government should work with state cases, while the investigation of Solberg is a private matter.

Legal assessment and sources of law

The two documents the lawyers in the Ministry of Health and Care Services sent to SMK during Friday 19 March are on six and four closely written pages, respectively, and are called:

«Preliminary assessment of whether the provisions of the covid-19 regulations on events applied to dinner in an apartment at a hotel on Saturday 27 February»

and

«The legal source for the provisions of the covid-19 regulations on events»

Solberg still maintains that there has been no follow-up from the government:

“The Prime Minister maintains that there has been no follow-up from the government on the police case itself, other than practical assistance in arranging interrogations with the police. However, she has received assistance in handling media inquiries and requests for access that followed in the wake of the police case “, writes State Secretary Rune Alstadsæter at SMK in an e-mail to VG on Friday afternoon.

—-–

The same morning, three weeks ago, the police had confirmed to several media that they would launch an investigation.

VG also asked Solberg she had read some of the two documents before they were published:

– I had seen the answer to what was about the legal understanding of what an event is. But that was also before this was also a police matter, Solberg replied.

– Must have remembered wrong

The documents published by the Prime Minister’s Office on Friday were kept hidden for the general public for three weeks. They have not been in SMK’s postal journal, which must contain correspondence and received case documents.

The document, which deals with the legal understanding of an event, was received at SMK at 16.27 on Friday 19 March – ie many hours after the police had confirmed the investigation.

After VG confronted SMK with this on Friday afternoon, Solberg has gone back on the statement to VG:

“The Friday after this case became public knowledge was a very hectic day for the Prime Minister, and she must have remembered incorrectly about what time of day she read the general document on what is an event within the meaning of the covid-19 regulations,” writes Alstadsæter.

Here you can read the documents that were first kept secret, and then released when the police concluded to fine Erna Solberg. There are e-mails to and from the head of operations at SMK, as well as the Ministry of Health and Care Services’ legal assessment of the case:

Critical law professor

Law professor Eivind Smith has been critical of SMK’s secrecy and the use of the civil service to follow up the problems after the private birthday party in Geilo.

– Has SMK thereby engaged in the handling of possible infection control violations at Solberg’s private birthday celebration?

– Yes, SMK has done that. Regardless of how specific assessments they wanted from the Ministry of Health and Care Services.
– Is this problematic?

– Yes, the government should work with state cases, while the investigation of Solberg is a private matter. Both Solberg’s civil service in SMK and the Ministry of Health and Care Services have obviously used resources to find out whether what Solberg did at his birthday party was banned.

—-–

The Secretary of State explains what the purpose of ordering this note was:

“We wanted this note to ensure that the responses from SMK to the media expressed a correct understanding of the current infection control rules and infection control recommendations, and thus had nothing to do with the police case itself.”

That makes Smith react:

– If the defense SMK now brings, which is that they had to obtain information about the legal source image in order to be able to answer the media, then it is the case that everyone has access to these regulations. And since the case was already with the police, they both could and should have contented themselves with showing the press further there, Smith says.

– SMK has stated that they would not get involved in the police investigation of Erna Solberg’s private affairs. But then they also had no reason to obtain any overview or assessments from the Ministry of Health and Care Services, says Smith.

Gave Solberg back cover

The aim of the investigation was to find out if there were any breaches of the corona rules during the private celebrations of Solberg’s 60th birthday in Geilo during the winter holidays, after NRK revealed a higher number of participants than recommended.

This question is central to the HOD’s first legal note on six closely written pages on legal provisions for events.

SMK received the note at 11.08 on the same day as the police started the investigation.

The lawyers at HOD have an interpretation of the regulations that gives Solberg backing so that she can hardly be punished for the whole extended family, 14 people, having eaten sushi together in an apartment in Geilo on the occasion of her birthday:

The lawyers in the ministry write that there is “a basis for raising doubts as to whether the regulations are sufficiently clear for the matter to be punished”.

The conclusion from the health lawyers was clear, and it came to SMK as the police were conducting their investigation:

“This indicates that the police will have grounds to close the case in question with an unclear legal situation as justification,” the Ministry of Health wrote in the note.

– Misunderstandings

In retrospect, SMK has stated that this note was the result of a misunderstanding:

The memo was “written due to misunderstandings between the offices at the Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Health and Care Services”, Alstadsæter writes in the e-mail to VG.

In any case, the “misunderstanding” should turn out to correspond completely with the police’s conclusion: The Prime Minister escapes punishment for the sushi dinner. The police believe there is uncertainty as to whether the corona regulations cover dinner parties in a rented apartment.

The original order from SMK must have been made by telephone. VG has asked if the interview was recorded and who participated in the interview. The question has not yet been answered.

–