March 28, 2026
Høiby Remains In Custody As New Supreme Court Ruling Changes The Legal Fight
Marius Borg Høiby will remain in custody after losing his appeal, while a major Supreme Court ruling on so-called sleep rape cases has opened a new legal front ahead of the expected June verdict. There is also growing backlash over how the Norwegian media covered the trial.
Portions of this program were assembled with the assistance of AI, including help with translation, summarisation, and news gathering from publicly available sources. While we have taken care to reflect the reporting accurately, translations and interpretations may contain errors. Listeners should treat this as an informational overview, not a verbatim court record.
Unlock an ad-free podcast experience with Caloroga Shark Media! Get all our shows on any player you love, hassle free! For Apple users, hit the banner on your Apple podcasts app. For Spotify or other players, visit caloroga.com/plus. No plug-ins needed!
Subscribe now for exclusive shows like 'Palace Intrigue,' and get bonus content from Deep Crown (our exclusive Palace Insider!) Or get 'Daily Comedy News,' and '5 Good News Stories’ with no commercials! Plans start at $4.99 per month, or save 20% with a yearly plan at $49.99. Join today and help support the show!
We now have Merch! FREE SHIPPING! Check out all the products like T-shirts, mugs, bags, jackets and more with logos and slogans from your favorite shows! Did we mention there’s free shipping? Get 10% off with code NewMerch10 Go to Caloroga.com
Get more info from
WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:11.039
Ah Calorogus, Shark Media at low and welcome to Crown
2
00:00:11.119 --> 00:00:15.679
and Controversy Norway and Your Palace Intrigued host Mark Francis.
3
00:00:16.399 --> 00:00:20.079
Marius Borgoibe's case took a meaningful turn on Friday, not
4
00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:22.679
because of anything that happened in his own courtroom, but
5
00:00:22.679 --> 00:00:26.280
because in Norway's Supreme Court issued a major new ruling
6
00:00:26.320 --> 00:00:29.239
that could affect how some of the most serious charges
7
00:00:29.320 --> 00:00:33.039
against him are ultimately judged at sentencing. The decision came
8
00:00:33.119 --> 00:00:35.200
just days after Hoyby lost his bid to get out
9
00:00:35.200 --> 00:00:37.799
of custody, and it now gives both sides in the
10
00:00:37.799 --> 00:00:41.119
case fresh ground to fight over as the court moves
11
00:00:41.560 --> 00:00:46.600
toward a verdict expected in June. Marius Borgoiby remains in
12
00:00:46.640 --> 00:00:49.200
custody after losing his appeal for release, As the case
13
00:00:49.200 --> 00:00:52.359
against him enters a new and potentially more complicated phase
14
00:00:52.840 --> 00:00:57.200
ahead of a verdict expected in June. The Boorgarding Court
15
00:00:57.240 --> 00:00:59.759
of Appeal has ruled that he should not be released
16
00:00:59.799 --> 00:01:04.079
from pre trial detention, upholding an earlier lower court decision
17
00:01:04.120 --> 00:01:07.760
and concluding that there remains a significant risk of reoffending
18
00:01:07.879 --> 00:01:11.079
if he were released. According to the ruling, the court
19
00:01:11.120 --> 00:01:14.079
found what it described as a strong probability that Hoibe
20
00:01:14.280 --> 00:01:17.719
could commit new offenses if allowed out of custody. The
21
00:01:17.799 --> 00:01:20.760
judges also pointed to an alleged breach of a restraining
22
00:01:20.840 --> 00:01:24.159
order after he had already been detained in February, saying
23
00:01:24.159 --> 00:01:27.599
that this too supported the conclusion that the risk remained real.
24
00:01:27.920 --> 00:01:30.519
In other words, the appeals court was not persuaded that
25
00:01:30.560 --> 00:01:35.680
circumstances had changed enough to justify a release. That decision
26
00:01:35.799 --> 00:01:37.920
is significant on its own, but it landed at the
27
00:01:37.959 --> 00:01:40.560
same time as another major development that could have real
28
00:01:40.599 --> 00:01:45.040
consequences for the eventual sentence in the case. Norway's Supreme
29
00:01:45.040 --> 00:01:47.840
Court this week handed down a closely watched ruling in
30
00:01:47.879 --> 00:01:51.359
a separate rape case involving what Norwegian media and courts
31
00:01:51.439 --> 00:01:54.879
often referred to as sleep rape cases, in which the
32
00:01:54.920 --> 00:01:58.120
complainant is alleged to have been asleep or otherwise unable
33
00:01:58.200 --> 00:02:02.359
to resist. Supreme Court ruling is important because it lowers
34
00:02:02.400 --> 00:02:06.920
the benchmark sentence in certain circumstances for that category of defense.
35
00:02:07.599 --> 00:02:09.560
The case before the court involved a man who was
36
00:02:09.639 --> 00:02:12.120
nineteen at the time of the offense, and the judges
37
00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:15.360
concluded that the appropriate sentence was lower than what had
38
00:02:15.400 --> 00:02:18.919
previously been treated as the standard. The court held that
39
00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:23.680
offenses of this kind can, under certain circumstances be punished
40
00:02:23.960 --> 00:02:28.439
less severely than rape cases involving violence or threats. That
41
00:02:28.560 --> 00:02:31.039
immediately matters in the Hoybe case because he is charged
42
00:02:31.039 --> 00:02:33.919
with multiple counts involving allegations that women were asleep or
43
00:02:33.919 --> 00:02:37.280
otherwise unable to resist. He denies criminal guilt on the
44
00:02:37.360 --> 00:02:40.319
rate charges, and within hours of the Supreme Court ruling,
45
00:02:40.599 --> 00:02:43.159
both signs in the Hoybe case were already making clear
46
00:02:43.199 --> 00:02:47.879
that they see the decision very differently. Weaby's defense attorney,
47
00:02:48.199 --> 00:02:51.360
Peter Seculeich, told Norwegian media that the ruling will clearly
48
00:02:51.400 --> 00:02:55.400
affect his client's case, arguing that there are important differences
49
00:02:55.439 --> 00:02:58.199
between the case decided by the Supreme Court and the
50
00:02:58.240 --> 00:03:02.280
allegations involving Hoyby, especially around what he describes as prior
51
00:03:02.360 --> 00:03:07.680
consensual sexual contact. Seculik has reportedly maintained that Hoby should
52
00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:10.639
be acquitted on the raid counts altogether, but he also
53
00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:12.759
made clear that if the courts were to convict on
54
00:03:12.919 --> 00:03:16.000
any of them, he believes the sentence should be reduced
55
00:03:16.080 --> 00:03:20.479
even further than the new Supreme Court framework would otherwise suggest.
56
00:03:21.479 --> 00:03:24.199
That is a notable shift in emphasis because it means
57
00:03:24.199 --> 00:03:27.599
the defense is now fighting on two levels at once. First,
58
00:03:27.599 --> 00:03:29.879
they are arguing that Hoby should not be convicted on
59
00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:33.879
key counts. Second, they are already laying the groundwork for
60
00:03:33.919 --> 00:03:37.319
a much lower sentencing outcome if he is. That is
61
00:03:37.360 --> 00:03:39.919
not unusual in a serious criminal case, but it does
62
00:03:39.960 --> 00:03:45.840
tell you how central the sentencing battle has become. Prosecutors, unsurprisingly,
63
00:03:45.879 --> 00:03:49.280
are taking a different view. State prosecutor Stirler Henrix Boe
64
00:03:49.280 --> 00:03:53.120
said the Supreme Court ruling was not especially surprising and
65
00:03:53.360 --> 00:03:56.520
argue that the prosecution has already taken that likely change
66
00:03:56.520 --> 00:04:00.840
in sentencing levels into account when making its case against Hoebing.
67
00:04:01.520 --> 00:04:04.520
He has said that the prosecution's recommendation of seven years
68
00:04:04.560 --> 00:04:08.039
and seven months already reflected an expectation that the benchmark
69
00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:12.680
for these kinds of offenses might move downward. Henrix may
70
00:04:12.719 --> 00:04:14.960
also argue that the new ruling does not answer all
71
00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:18.480
of the key questions in Hoebe's case. In particular, he
72
00:04:18.519 --> 00:04:20.879
has pointed to the role of prior sexual contact and
73
00:04:20.920 --> 00:04:24.839
the specific relationships between the parties involved, arguing that those
74
00:04:24.879 --> 00:04:28.079
are fact sensitive issues the trial will still need to
75
00:04:28.079 --> 00:04:31.279
assess on its own. That means the Supreme Court ruling
76
00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:34.759
may shape the legal framework, but it does not automatically
77
00:04:34.759 --> 00:04:38.399
settle how the Oslo District Court should view the allegations
78
00:04:38.439 --> 00:04:42.399
against Hoibe. In practical terms, the legal fight has narrowed
79
00:04:42.439 --> 00:04:45.639
and intensified. The broad public drama of the trial may
80
00:04:45.639 --> 00:04:49.120
be over four now, but the legal battle heading into
81
00:04:49.160 --> 00:04:53.519
the verdict has become more technical and more consequential. The
82
00:04:53.639 --> 00:04:56.160
question is no longer only whether Hoebi is found guilty
83
00:04:56.160 --> 00:04:58.879
on particular accounts. It is also what the courts now
84
00:04:58.920 --> 00:05:01.439
believe those counts are worth in years if there is
85
00:05:01.560 --> 00:05:05.720
a conviction. Prosecutors are still seeking a sentence of seven
86
00:05:05.800 --> 00:05:08.680
years and seven months. The defense, by contrast, has argue
87
00:05:08.720 --> 00:05:11.560
that for the offense Hoeby has acknowledged a sentence in
88
00:05:11.560 --> 00:05:14.079
the neighborhood of a year and a half would be appropriate,
89
00:05:14.839 --> 00:05:18.240
even if he were convicted on additional accounts he currently denies.
90
00:05:18.639 --> 00:05:22.680
The defense is indicated it believes the prosecution's proposed sentence
91
00:05:22.759 --> 00:05:25.959
is far too high. The gap is part of what
92
00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:28.759
makes the June verdict such a major moment. It will
93
00:05:28.759 --> 00:05:31.480
not simply answer whether Hoybi is guilty or not guilty
94
00:05:31.519 --> 00:05:34.839
on specific charges. It will also tell us how the
95
00:05:34.879 --> 00:05:36.920
court has been chosen to weigh a case that sits
96
00:05:36.920 --> 00:05:41.839
at the intersection of public scandal, evolving legal standards, media saturation,
97
00:05:42.240 --> 00:05:44.759
and one of the most closely watched family crises in
98
00:05:44.839 --> 00:05:49.319
modern Norwegian royal history. More crown and controversy in just
99
00:05:49.399 --> 00:05:55.759
a moment. There is another thread developing around this case
100
00:05:55.800 --> 00:05:57.920
as well, and that is the growing backlash over how
101
00:05:57.920 --> 00:06:02.000
the media covered the trial. Its off TV two reported
102
00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:05.040
this week that VEG will not be fined after mistakingly
103
00:06:05.079 --> 00:06:07.720
publishing the name of one of the complainants during the trial.
104
00:06:08.319 --> 00:06:11.560
The name reportedly appeared briefly in VG's live coverage and
105
00:06:11.639 --> 00:06:16.720
was also mentioned during the vg TV broadcast before being removed.
106
00:06:17.079 --> 00:06:20.879
The mistake led to immediate fallout, including the journalist involved
107
00:06:20.920 --> 00:06:23.639
being removed from the court room, but now the court
108
00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:27.199
has decided not to pursue a procedural fine against VG.
109
00:06:28.360 --> 00:06:30.680
That decision appears to have been influenced in part by
110
00:06:30.680 --> 00:06:33.839
the court's own acknowledgment that its written guidance around the
111
00:06:33.879 --> 00:06:38.040
reporting restrictions may not have been sufficiently clear. Even so,
112
00:06:38.360 --> 00:06:41.279
the episode has added to a broader conversation in Norway
113
00:06:41.720 --> 00:06:44.480
about whether parts of the media crossed important lines during
114
00:06:44.519 --> 00:06:48.040
the case. That conversation became even more pointed after comments
115
00:06:48.040 --> 00:06:52.120
from Hoyby's defense attorney, Allen Holliger and Annas, who spoke
116
00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:54.839
publicly this week about what she described as the intensity
117
00:06:54.879 --> 00:06:58.839
and intrusiveness of the coverage. She said the cumulative media
118
00:06:58.879 --> 00:07:03.439
pressure had been heart breaking, the awful, crushing, and absolutely terrible,
119
00:07:03.720 --> 00:07:07.079
and accused the press of showing little real concern about
120
00:07:07.079 --> 00:07:10.920
the human cost of the spectacle. She also criticized the
121
00:07:10.959 --> 00:07:14.639
sheer level of detail being reported from the courtroom, arguing
122
00:07:14.680 --> 00:07:17.199
that there is a difference between informing the public and
123
00:07:17.240 --> 00:07:21.560
effectively turning the public into an unofficial jury. Her argument
124
00:07:21.720 --> 00:07:24.560
was that the justice system is supposed to function inside
125
00:07:24.600 --> 00:07:28.800
the courtroom, not in the national comment section. That is,
126
00:07:28.839 --> 00:07:32.279
of course an argument that media organizations will resist, especially
127
00:07:32.319 --> 00:07:34.319
the case involving the step son of the future King
128
00:07:34.439 --> 00:07:37.160
and the son of the future Queen. The press will say,
129
00:07:37.560 --> 00:07:41.079
with some justification that the public interest here is enormous,
130
00:07:41.720 --> 00:07:44.199
but the discomfort around the coverage is real, and it
131
00:07:44.279 --> 00:07:46.399
is becoming part of the broader legacy of the case,
132
00:07:46.399 --> 00:07:49.360
whether the media likes that or not. So at this point,
133
00:07:49.519 --> 00:07:51.839
the Hoybe case is no longer just one story. It
134
00:07:51.879 --> 00:07:54.920
is several stories running at once. It is a criminal
135
00:07:54.959 --> 00:07:58.079
case awaiting judgment. It is a test case for evolving
136
00:07:58.199 --> 00:08:01.920
sentencing law. It is a media ethics argument, and it
137
00:08:01.959 --> 00:08:06.199
remains inevitably a story about the damage radiating outward through
138
00:08:06.600 --> 00:08:11.120
one of Europe's most scrutinized royal families. The verdict is
139
00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:14.600
still expected in June, but between the detention ruling, the
140
00:08:14.639 --> 00:08:18.000
Supreme Court decision, and the ongoing fallout from the trial itself,
141
00:08:18.319 --> 00:08:20.839
this case is still moving in meaningful ways even now
142
00:08:20.839 --> 00:08:24.839
that the courtroom drama has paused. Will continue to check
143
00:08:24.879 --> 00:08:28.319
in as news warrants. And there you have it. If
144
00:08:28.360 --> 00:08:30.720
you'd like to email us our addresses The Palace Intrigue
145
00:08:30.720 --> 00:08:33.480
at gmail dot com. Please follow us on Spotify, Apple
146
00:08:33.639 --> 00:08:36.399
or the app of your choice. I'm Mark Francis Mean.
147
00:08:36.440 --> 00:08:40.679
Thanks to John McDermott. This is Crown and Controversy Norway
1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:11.039
2
00:00:11.119 --> 00:00:15.679
3
00:00:16.399 --> 00:00:20.079
4
00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:22.679
5
00:00:22.679 --> 00:00:26.280
6
00:00:26.320 --> 00:00:29.239
7
00:00:29.320 --> 00:00:33.039
8
00:00:33.119 --> 00:00:35.200
9
00:00:35.200 --> 00:00:37.799
10
00:00:37.799 --> 00:00:41.119
11
00:00:41.560 --> 00:00:46.600
12
00:00:46.640 --> 00:00:49.200
13
00:00:49.200 --> 00:00:52.359
14
00:00:52.840 --> 00:00:57.200
15
00:00:57.240 --> 00:00:59.759
16
00:00:59.799 --> 00:01:04.079
17
00:01:04.120 --> 00:01:07.760
18
00:01:07.879 --> 00:01:11.079
19
00:01:11.120 --> 00:01:14.079
20
00:01:14.280 --> 00:01:17.719
21
00:01:17.799 --> 00:01:20.760
22
00:01:20.840 --> 00:01:24.159
23
00:01:24.159 --> 00:01:27.599
24
00:01:27.920 --> 00:01:30.519
25
00:01:30.560 --> 00:01:35.680
26
00:01:35.799 --> 00:01:37.920
27
00:01:37.959 --> 00:01:40.560
28
00:01:40.599 --> 00:01:45.040
29
00:01:45.040 --> 00:01:47.840
30
00:01:47.879 --> 00:01:51.359
31
00:01:51.439 --> 00:01:54.879
32
00:01:54.920 --> 00:01:58.120
33
00:01:58.200 --> 00:02:02.359
34
00:02:02.400 --> 00:02:06.920
35
00:02:07.599 --> 00:02:09.560
36
00:02:09.639 --> 00:02:12.120
37
00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:15.360
38
00:02:15.400 --> 00:02:18.919
39
00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:23.680
40
00:02:23.960 --> 00:02:28.439
41
00:02:28.560 --> 00:02:31.039
42
00:02:31.039 --> 00:02:33.919
43
00:02:33.919 --> 00:02:37.280
44
00:02:37.360 --> 00:02:40.319
45
00:02:40.599 --> 00:02:43.159
46
00:02:43.199 --> 00:02:47.879
47
00:02:48.199 --> 00:02:51.360
48
00:02:51.400 --> 00:02:55.400
49
00:02:55.439 --> 00:02:58.199
50
00:02:58.240 --> 00:03:02.280
51
00:03:02.360 --> 00:03:07.680
52
00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:10.639
53
00:03:10.680 --> 00:03:12.759
54
00:03:12.919 --> 00:03:16.000
55
00:03:16.080 --> 00:03:20.479
56
00:03:21.479 --> 00:03:24.199
57
00:03:24.199 --> 00:03:27.599
58
00:03:27.599 --> 00:03:29.879
59
00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:33.879
60
00:03:33.919 --> 00:03:37.319
61
00:03:37.360 --> 00:03:39.919
62
00:03:39.960 --> 00:03:45.840
63
00:03:45.879 --> 00:03:49.280
64
00:03:49.280 --> 00:03:53.120
65
00:03:53.360 --> 00:03:56.520
66
00:03:56.520 --> 00:04:00.840
67
00:04:01.520 --> 00:04:04.520
68
00:04:04.560 --> 00:04:08.039
69
00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:12.680
70
00:04:12.719 --> 00:04:14.960
71
00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:18.480
72
00:04:18.519 --> 00:04:20.879
73
00:04:20.920 --> 00:04:24.839
74
00:04:24.879 --> 00:04:28.079
75
00:04:28.079 --> 00:04:31.279
76
00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:34.759
77
00:04:34.759 --> 00:04:38.399
78
00:04:38.439 --> 00:04:42.399
79
00:04:42.439 --> 00:04:45.639
80
00:04:45.639 --> 00:04:49.120
81
00:04:49.160 --> 00:04:53.519
82
00:04:53.639 --> 00:04:56.160
83
00:04:56.160 --> 00:04:58.879
84
00:04:58.920 --> 00:05:01.439
85
00:05:01.560 --> 00:05:05.720
86
00:05:05.800 --> 00:05:08.680
87
00:05:08.720 --> 00:05:11.560
88
00:05:11.560 --> 00:05:14.079
89
00:05:14.839 --> 00:05:18.240
90
00:05:18.639 --> 00:05:22.680
91
00:05:22.759 --> 00:05:25.959
92
00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:28.759
93
00:05:28.759 --> 00:05:31.480
94
00:05:31.519 --> 00:05:34.839
95
00:05:34.879 --> 00:05:36.920
96
00:05:36.920 --> 00:05:41.839
97
00:05:42.240 --> 00:05:44.759
98
00:05:44.839 --> 00:05:49.319
99
00:05:49.399 --> 00:05:55.759
100
00:05:55.800 --> 00:05:57.920
101
00:05:57.920 --> 00:06:02.000
102
00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:05.040
103
00:06:05.079 --> 00:06:07.720
104
00:06:08.319 --> 00:06:11.560
105
00:06:11.639 --> 00:06:16.720
106
00:06:17.079 --> 00:06:20.879
107
00:06:20.920 --> 00:06:23.639
108
00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:27.199
109
00:06:28.360 --> 00:06:30.680
110
00:06:30.680 --> 00:06:33.839
111
00:06:33.879 --> 00:06:38.040
112
00:06:38.360 --> 00:06:41.279
113
00:06:41.720 --> 00:06:44.480
114
00:06:44.519 --> 00:06:48.040
115
00:06:48.040 --> 00:06:52.120
116
00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:54.839
117
00:06:54.879 --> 00:06:58.839
118
00:06:58.879 --> 00:07:03.439
119
00:07:03.720 --> 00:07:07.079
120
00:07:07.079 --> 00:07:10.920
121
00:07:10.959 --> 00:07:14.639
122
00:07:14.680 --> 00:07:17.199
123
00:07:17.240 --> 00:07:21.560
124
00:07:21.720 --> 00:07:24.560
125
00:07:24.600 --> 00:07:28.800
126
00:07:28.839 --> 00:07:32.279
127
00:07:32.319 --> 00:07:34.319
128
00:07:34.439 --> 00:07:37.160
129
00:07:37.560 --> 00:07:41.079
130
00:07:41.720 --> 00:07:44.199
131
00:07:44.279 --> 00:07:46.399
132
00:07:46.399 --> 00:07:49.360
133
00:07:49.519 --> 00:07:51.839
134
00:07:51.879 --> 00:07:54.920
135
00:07:54.959 --> 00:07:58.079
136
00:07:58.199 --> 00:08:01.920
137
00:08:01.959 --> 00:08:06.199
138
00:08:06.600 --> 00:08:11.120
139
00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:14.600
140
00:08:14.639 --> 00:08:18.000
141
00:08:18.319 --> 00:08:20.839
142
00:08:20.839 --> 00:08:24.839
143
00:08:24.879 --> 00:08:28.319
144
00:08:28.360 --> 00:08:30.720
145
00:08:30.720 --> 00:08:33.480
146
00:08:33.639 --> 00:08:36.399
147
00:08:36.440 --> 00:08:40.679