prosecutors

March 19 (UPI) — Prosecutors said that if Marius Borg Høiby, son of Norway’s crown princess, is found guilty, he should serve more than seven years in prison for the 39 charges he faces.

The charges include four rapes and assaults, rape and domestic abuse, multiple breaches of restraining orders, and drug and driving offenses.

One charge of violation of a restraining order has been dropped.

Høiby, 29, pleaded guilty to several minor charges but denied the rape charges.

The final day of the trial is Thursday, but it could take months for the judges to give a verdict.

Several alleged victims have testified, including Høiby’s former girlfriend, influencer Nora Haukland.

In all four rape cases the victims were either asleep or incapacitated. Early in the trial, Høiby told the court, “I don’t sleep with women who aren’t awake.”

His mother is Mette-Marit, who is married to the crown prince of Norway. Høiby is her son from a previous relationship. He grew up in the royal family, but is not an official member of it.

Mette-Marit was a friend of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which was revealed from one of the Epstein files releases from the U.S. Justice Department. Her health has declined due to pulmonary fibrosis, and she has said needs a lung transplant.

The prosecution asked the court for Høiby to be in prison for seven years and seven months. It also asked that he be banned from contacting one of his alleged victims for two years and asked that several devices, including three iPhones and a MacBook, be confiscated. It also wants his driver’s license to be taken away for two years, and for him to have to take a new driving test after that time is up.

“These are very serious acts,” said state attorney Sturla Henriksbø. “It is among the most serious offenses in our criminal code to apply to violations of integrity. And it should entail a strict and tangible reaction in each case.”

Police attorney Andreas Kruszewski said Høiby should not be given a “penalty discount” because of media attention.

“The fact that you commit criminal acts after the media spotlight has been directed at you as a well-known person contributes to the fact that he should not receive a reduction in sentence,” Kruszewski said.

March 4 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s prosecution service is facing criticism from legal experts after abandoning appeals in several major cases, including those involving President Lee Jae-myung and figures from the ruling party.

Legal analysts say the trend raises concerns about the erosion of prosecutorial independence amid pressure from the government and political circles.

Prosecutors declined to appeal the first-instance ruling in the Daejang-dong development corruption case involving President Lee in November last year. Reports later suggested that senior leadership at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office overruled recommendations from the investigation and trial teams to pursue an appeal.

The decision also effectively halted efforts to recover approximately 780 billion won ($585 million) in alleged illicit profits from developers linked to the Daejang-dong project.

Prosecutors also chose not to appeal a similar case involving alleged corruption in the Wirye new town development project.

Appeal decisions have also drawn attention in other politically sensitive cases.

In the first-trial verdict related to the 2020 West Sea shooting of a South Korean fisheries official, prosecutors filed what observers described as a “partial appeal” against former National Security Office Director Seo Hoon and former Coast Guard Commissioner Kim Hong-hee.

In a separate case involving allegations of illegal political funding tied to former Democratic Party leader Song Young-gil, prosecutors did not file an appeal to the Supreme Court even after the appellate court overturned the earlier ruling and issued an acquittal.

Prosecutors also declined to appeal rulings involving current and former Democratic Party lawmakers connected to a National Assembly fast-track legislation dispute. Officials said the decision was based on a judgment that further appeals would have “limited practical benefit.” Prosecutors likewise did not appeal convictions involving lawmakers from the opposition People Power Party in the same case.

Under South Korean law, prosecutors are required to perform their duties independently. However, some legal experts argue that recent decisions suggest political pressure may be influencing prosecutorial discretion.

President Lee previously criticized prosecutors during a cabinet meeting in September last year, saying prosecutors sometimes file indictments even when cases lack legal grounds and pursue appeals after acquittals to avoid responsibility.

Lee also ordered an internal inspection after prosecutors staged a collective walkout during the trial of former Gyeonggi Province Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young.

Following those developments, lawmakers from the ruling party introduced legislation to revise disciplinary procedures for prosecutors and pushed for amendments to the Criminal Act aimed at punishing judges and prosecutors who intentionally distort legal interpretation or misjudge facts during investigations or trials.

The ruling party has also formed a parliamentary group advocating for the withdrawal of charges against President Lee and for a national investigation into what they claim were politically motivated indictments.

Cha Jin-ah, a professor at Korea University Law School, said prosecutors appear increasingly reluctant to challenge the administration.

“Prosecutors who might once have pursued investigations or maintained indictments against the government with conviction are now watching the political climate,” Cha said. “This risks subordinating prosecutorial decisions to political power.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260304010000994

The Los Angeles County District Attorney is investigating whether Southern California Edison should be criminally prosecuted for its actions in last year’s devastating Eaton wildfire, which killed 19 people and left thousands of families homeless, the company said Wednesday.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told Wall Street analysts during an afternoon conference call that the company was cooperating with the District Attorney’s office. He said he didn’t know the magnitude of the investigation.

The company said in its annual 10-K report, which was released Wednesday, that it “could be subject to material fines, penalties, or restitution” if the investigation “determined that it failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.”

“SCE is not aware of any basis for felony liability with regards to the Eaton Fire,” the report said. “Any fines and penalties incurred in connection with the Eaton Fire will not be recoverable from insurance, from the Wildfire Fund, or through electric rates.”

The District Attorney’s office declined to comment.

The investigation into the fire, which destroyed a wide swath of Altadena, has not yet been released. Pizarro has said that a leading theory of the fire’s cause is that a century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which had not carried power for 50 years, somehow re-energized and sparked the fire.

Edison executives have said they didn’t remove the line because they believed it would be used in the future.

Company executives knew idle transmission lines could spark wildfires. In 2019, investigators traced the Kincade fire in Sonoma County, which destroyed 374 homes and other structures, to a transmission line owned by Pacific Gas & Electric that was no longer in service.

The Times reported in December how Edison fell behind in maintenance of its transmission system before the fire.

Despite the dangerous Santa Ana wind conditions on Jan. 7, 2025, Edison decided not to shut down the transmission lines running through Eaton Canyon. Pizarro has said the winds that night didn’t meet the company’s threshold at the time for turning off the lines.

Pizarro told investors on the call Wednesday that he continued to believe that the company had acted as a “reasonable utility operator” before the deadly fire.

Under state law, if a utility is determined to have acted reasonably it can be reimbursed for all or most of the damages of the fire by a state wildfire fund.