– I think the verdict is problematic. Here, the district court has interpreted the law too literally, says associate professor of jurisprudence Katrine Holter at the Norwegian Police Academy.
She has read with great interest the verdict from the Eastern Inland District Court, which on Thursday before Christmas sentenced a woman for having killed three goldfish with chlorine after a conflict with the goldfish owner.
The woman in her 50s feels hanged as a goldfish killer and denied guilt when she appeared in court and defended herself.
– The fact that this case is going to court is so stupid that I can hardly be objective, she said.
But the woman was found guilty of violating the Animal Protection Act and must pay a fine of NOK 6,000.
– In the court’s view, she exercised violence when she poured chlorine into the water to kill the fish. That this constitutes “violence” must apply regardless of whether the fish were exposed to prolonged stress or whether they died quickly, the District Court writes in its decision.
FULL REVIEW: The prosecutor in the case, Vilde Voll, received full review for his criminal claim in the goldfish case Photo: Olav Wold/TV 2.
Restrictive
Katrine Holter clarifies that even though fish are covered by the Animal Welfare Act, it is not the case that criminal responsibility for violence against animals automatically includes taking the life of goldfish.
– The Animal Welfare Act has many other functions than punishing. There may therefore be good reasons why the law includes fish, without the intention of criminalizing the killing of goldfish, the associate professor of jurisprudence tells TV 2.
Holter explains this by saying that it is common law-making technique to throw in a general sentence with validity for the entire law.
CRITICAL: Katrine Holter is associate professor of jurisprudence at the Norwegian Police Academy. Photo: Police Academy.
– An interpretation that is too literal can then produce rather absurd results in court. Therefore, we have what is referred to in professional language as the doctrine of the non-statutory litigation reservation, which means that one must always assess whether the law should be interpreted restrictively because the specific action is not unlawful. Not everything that falls under the words of the law falls under its meaning, explains Holter.
Fishing punishable?
She believes that one can safely conclude that there are good reasons to interpret the law restrictively in the goldfish case.
– Because should we really use the state’s strictest intervention – punishment – against people who kill fish? Then one must also draw the conclusion that it is a criminal offense to catch fish from the sea without eating it, believes the jurisprudence expert.
Holter points out that the act, on the other hand, could have been prosecuted as minor damage under the Criminal Code, and adds:
– In any case, you have to be kind with goldfish, says Katrine Holter.
