On Friday morning, the Borgarting Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case against Gaute Drevdal was ready.
Drevdal has been sentenced to one year in prison, for a rape committed in 2005. He was thus acquitted of eight of the nine rapes he was charged with, as well as a case of sexual intercourse with someone under 16 years.
Drevdal’s defender, lawyer Ida Andenæs, says that her client is satisfied with the result.
– We are naturally satisfied with the result. We have just received the verdict and will now go through it thoroughly and see what we possibly do, Andenæs says to TV 2.
Drevdal is still sentenced to pay reparations to five of the women. The burden of proof for redress in court is lower than the burden of proof for a judgment.
Drevdal was sentenced to 13.5 years in prison in Oslo District Court in June 2020, a verdict that was appealed on the spot.
Drevdal has had a number of leading roles in the cultural environment since the 90s. Among other things, he has been the editor of the magazine Natt og Dag, and he has been the press manager for Hovefesteivalen.
It is through the cultural environment that he has known most of the women who reported him for rape.
There is no physical evidence in the case, and the prosecution’s evidence has in the first instance been centered around the aggrieved women’s explanations.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment paints a picture of an environment characterized by intoxication and free sexuality.
For Drevdal, his own explanation was an important part of the evidence. He has always denied criminal guilt in the case, and has explained that the sexual relations were voluntary.
After the first round of court, Drevdal was not satisfied with the basis for the verdict. He thought the whole trial had appeared as one big play.
– Ordinary people would be shocked if they knew what is considered “evidence” in this type of case. It is not a question of actual evidence, but that loose allegations in 2020 outweigh actual evidence from the time the accusations relate. It is difficult to understand, he told TV 2 then.
In both rounds of court, the trials have been going on for several months. Good time has been set aside for both explanations and expert witnesses.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal also assumes that there is no physical evidence in the cases, and that the evidence that is available is not sufficient in eight of nine cases.