Norway's legal system is confronting a sensitive case as Marius Borg Høiby, the eldest son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit, testified in Oslo District Court this week. Høiby, 29, is accused of sexually assaulting a woman following an after-party at the royal family's Skaugum estate several years ago. The central and unusual point of contention is that both the accused and the woman state they have no memory of the specific incident in question.
The Night at Skaugum
The court has heard a detailed timeline of the early morning hours at the royal residence. According to evidence presented by police and prosecutors, The King's Guard registered Høiby's arrival at Skaugum with approximately ten guests at 3:20 AM. A video showing a drinking game was recorded just 19 minutes later. At 6:41 AM, a friend of Høiby's sent a text message stating, 'we went to bed.' The first of four videos found on Høiby's phone was recorded at 7:12:22 AM—a clip lasting 17.1 seconds.
Høiby responded to his friend's text at 7:14 AM, writing 'digg' (nice). Shortly after, at 7:15:23 AM, another 15.92-second video was recorded. Two further videos, of 8.88 and 22.95 seconds respectively, were time-stamped at 7:16:50 and 7:17:52. Høiby searched for a taxi at 7:21 AM, and the woman left Skaugum at 7:33 AM. The prosecution has presented these videos and ten still images as evidence of what they argue constitutes a 'sleep rape,' asserting the woman appears to have her eyes closed and is not conscious in the footage.
Competing Claims in Court
During his testimony, Høiby acknowledged the woman's eyes were closed in the material but maintained she must have been awake. 'I don't have sex with girls who aren't awake,' Høiby told the court. When questioned about sending a text message to his friend during the period he claims consensual intercourse was occurring, he stated, 'I had the phone in my hand, and it doesn't take long to write 'digg.' I have talked on the phone and sent text messages in the middle of sex before.'
Prosecutor Sturla Henriksbø explained the relevance of the text message exchange to the court's assessment. 'It is part of the sequence of events and timeline that it is useful to hear his thoughts around. Here he has—midway through what he believes is voluntary sex—sent a text message to a buddy. We believe it is relevant in the assessment of whether she was awake or not,' Henriksbø said. He emphasized the prosecution's focus on clarifying what Høiby actually remembers from that night versus what he infers, particularly from the episodes when the videos were filmed.
The Legal Core of the Case
The case hinges on the interpretation of the digital evidence and the state of consciousness of the woman. The first video was recorded exactly 33 minutes after Høiby received the message that others had gone to bed. Prosecutor Henriksbø addressed a fundamental point regarding the private nature of the alleged crime. 'The videos were filmed in a period where the accused and the victim were alone, but most instances of intercourse and rape happen with only two people present,' he stated. This underscores the legal challenge of proving non-consent in a setting with no other witnesses, relying instead on timestamps, message logs, and visual evidence.
For the prosecution, the sequence of events—from the group's dispersal to the filming of multiple short videos, the concurrent text messaging, and the rapid departure of the woman—forms a chain of circumstantial evidence. They contend this evidence suggests the woman was not in a state to give consent. The defense, through Høiby's testimony, asserts the activity was consensual and that the woman's lack of visible engagement in the videos does not equate to a lack of consciousness.
A Verdict with Wide Implications
The conclusion of this trial will resonate beyond the courtroom. A conviction would signal the judiciary's willingness to convict in complex sexual assault cases where evidence is circumstantial and digital, setting a potential precedent. An acquittal would be seen by some as a failure of the system to protect victims who have no memory of an assault, and by others as a correct application of the principle that guilt must be proven. The court must now weigh the silent testimony of four short videos against the spoken testimony of the man who filmed them, all under the shadow of Norway's royal family, yet entirely within the impartial light of the law.