Høiby Remains In Custody As New Supreme Court Ruling Changes The Legal Fight

0:00 Ah Calorogus, Shark Media at low and welcome to Crown and Controversy Norway and Your Palace Intrigued host Mark Francis. Marius Borgoibe's case took a meaningful turn on Friday, not because of anything that happened in his own courtroom, but because in Norway's Supreme Court issued a major new ruling that could affect how some of the most serious charges against him are ultimately judged at sentencing. The decision came just days after Hoyby lost his bid to get out of custody, and it now gives both sides in the case fresh ground to fight over as the court moves toward a verdict expected in June. Marius Borgoiby remains in custody after losing his appeal for release, As the case against him enters a new and potentially more complicated phase ahead of a verdict expected in June. The Boorgarding Court of Appeal has ruled that he should not be released from pre trial detention, upholding an earlier lower court decision and concluding that there remains a significant risk of reoffending if he were released. According to the ruling, the court found what it described as a strong probability that Hoibe could commit new offenses if allowed out of custody. The judges also pointed to an alleged breach of a restraining order after he had already been detained in February, saying that this too supported the conclusion that the risk remained real.

1:27 In other words, the appeals court was not persuaded that circumstances had changed enough to justify a release. That decision is significant on its own, but it landed at the same time as another major development that could have real consequences for the eventual sentence in the case. Norway's Supreme Court this week handed down a closely watched ruling in a separate rape case involving what Norwegian media and courts often referred to as sleep rape cases, in which the complainant is alleged to have been asleep or otherwise unable to resist. Supreme Court ruling is important because it lowers the benchmark sentence in certain circumstances for that category of defense. The case before the court involved a man who was nineteen at the time of the offense, and the judges concluded that the appropriate sentence was lower than what had previously been treated as the standard. The court held that offenses of this kind can, under certain circumstances be punished less severely than rape cases involving violence or threats. That immediately matters in the Hoybe case because he is charged with multiple counts involving allegations that women were asleep or otherwise unable to resist. He denies criminal guilt on the rate charges, and within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, both signs in the Hoybe case were already making clear that they see the decision very differently. Weaby's defense attorney, Peter Seculeich, told Norwegian media that the ruling will clearly affect his client's case, arguing that there are important differences between the case decided by the Supreme Court and the

2:58 allegations involving Hoyby, especially around what he describes as prior consensual sexual contact. Seculik has reportedly maintained that Hoby should be acquitted on the raid counts altogether, but he also made clear that if the courts were to convict on any of them, he believes the sentence should be reduced even further than the new Supreme Court framework would otherwise suggest. That is a notable shift in emphasis because it means the defense is now fighting on two levels at once. First, they are arguing that Hoby should not be convicted on key counts. Second, they are already laying the groundwork for a much lower sentencing outcome if he is. That is not unusual in a serious criminal case, but it does tell you how central the sentencing battle has become. Prosecutors, unsurprisingly, are taking a different view. State prosecutor Stirler Henrix Boe said the Supreme Court ruling was not especially surprising and argue that the prosecution has already taken that likely change in sentencing levels into account when making its case against Hoebing.

4:01 He has said that the prosecution's recommendation of seven years and seven months already reflected an expectation that the benchmark for these kinds of offenses might move downward. Henrix may also argue that the new ruling does not answer all of the key questions in Hoebe's case. In particular, he has pointed to the role of prior sexual contact and the specific relationships between the parties involved, arguing that those are fact sensitive issues the trial will still need to assess on its own. That means the Supreme Court ruling may shape the legal framework, but it does not automatically settle how the Oslo District Court should view the allegations against Hoibe. In practical terms, the legal fight has narrowed and intensified. The broad public drama of the trial may be over four now, but the legal battle heading into the verdict has become more technical and more consequential. The question is no longer only whether Hoebi is found guilty on particular accounts. It is also what the courts now believe those counts are worth in years if there is a conviction. Prosecutors are still seeking a sentence of seven years and seven months. The defense, by contrast, has argue that for the offense Hoeby has acknowledged a sentence in the neighborhood of a year and a half would be appropriate, even if he were convicted on additional accounts he currently denies.

5:18 The defense is indicated it believes the prosecution's proposed sentence is far too high. The gap is part of what makes the June verdict such a major moment. It will not simply answer whether Hoybi is guilty or not guilty on specific charges. It will also tell us how the court has been chosen to weigh a case that sits at the intersection of public scandal, evolving legal standards, media saturation, and one of the most closely watched family crises in modern Norwegian royal history. More crown and controversy in just a moment. There is another thread developing around this case as well, and that is the growing backlash over how the media covered the trial. Its off TV two reported this week that VEG will not be fined after mistakingly publishing the name of one of the complainants during the trial.

6:08 The name reportedly appeared briefly in VG's live coverage and was also mentioned during the vg TV broadcast before being removed. The mistake led to immediate fallout, including the journalist involved being removed from the court room, but now the court has decided not to pursue a procedural fine against VG. That decision appears to have been influenced in part by the court's own acknowledgment that its written guidance around the reporting restrictions may not have been sufficiently clear. Even so, the episode has added to a broader conversation in Norway about whether parts of the media crossed important lines during the case. That conversation became even more pointed after comments from Hoyby's defense attorney, Allen Holliger and Annas, who spoke publicly this week about what she described as the intensity and intrusiveness of the coverage. She said the cumulative media pressure had been heart breaking, the awful, crushing, and absolutely terrible, and accused the press of showing little real concern about the human cost of the spectacle. She also criticized the sheer level of detail being reported from the courtroom, arguing that there is a difference between informing the public and effectively turning the public into an unofficial jury. Her argument was that the justice system is supposed to function inside the courtroom, not in the national comment section. That is, of course an argument that media organizations will resist, especially the case involving the step son of the future King and the son of the future Queen. The press will say, with some justification that the public interest here is enormous,

7:41 but the discomfort around the coverage is real, and it is becoming part of the broader legacy of the case, whether the media likes that or not. So at this point, the Hoybe case is no longer just one story. It is several stories running at once. It is a criminal case awaiting judgment. It is a test case for evolving sentencing law. It is a media ethics argument, and it remains inevitably a story about the damage radiating outward through one of Europe's most scrutinized royal families. The verdict is still expected in June, but between the detention ruling, the Supreme Court decision, and the ongoing fallout from the trial itself, this case is still moving in meaningful ways even now that the courtroom drama has paused. Will continue to check in as news warrants. And there you have it. If you'd like to email us our addresses The Palace Intrigue at gmail dot com. Please follow us on Spotify, Apple or the app of your choice. I'm Mark Francis Mean.

8:36 Thanks to John McDermott. This is Crown and Controversy Norway