ON
← Back to feed
Why Should Prosecutors Respond?
IS🏛️ Politics6 days ago

Why Should Prosecutors Respond?

A legal expert, Vilhjálmur H. Vilhjálmsson, has called for an investigation into traffic cases involving drivers accused of driving under the influence of medication between January 1, 2020, and the present, where cases were concluded with police settlements or convictions. This request follows a ruling by the Supreme Court in June of last year, which acquitted an individual who had driven four times while under the influence of prescribed medication. The individual was previously convicted by the District Court of North-East Iceland based on assessments from the University of Iceland’s Institute of Pharmaceutical and Food Sciences, which deemed him unfit to drive. Vilhjálmsson argues that the Supreme Court’s decision highlights a flaw in the justice system, as it contradicts the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, which allows authorities to assess impairment due to drug use more strictly. He criticizes the lack of action by the Ministry of Justice over seven years since the relevant law came into effect and calls for the National Prosecution Authority to review all such cases.

Skorar á ríkissaksóknara að bregðast við

Eftir að ríkissaksóknari í Hæstarétti hefði verið sýknudómur landsréttar um ákæru á móti einstaklingi sem var dæmdur í héraði fyrir að hafa ekið undir áhrifum slævandi lyfja, hefur hæstarréttarlögmaður Vilhjálmur H. Vilhjálmsson skorað á ríkissaksóknara að endurskoða öll lögreglumál sem varða lyfjaakstur eftir að ný umferðarlög tóku gildi árið 2020. Það eru ákæru á móti ökumönnum sem voru kærðir fyrir brot á 1. og 2. mgr. 48. greina umferðarlaga, sem lýsir um lyfjaakstur. Málunum hafa verið lokið með lögreglustjórasátt eða útgáfu ákæru og dómi frá 1. janúar 2020 til dagsins í dag.

Ákæruvarðaður var einstaklingur sem var dæmdur í héraði fyrir að hafa fjórum sinnum ekið bíl undir áhrifum uppáskrifaðs óxýkódon. Héraðsdómur Norðurlands eystra hafði áður sakfellt einstaklinginn á grundvalli matsgerða rannsóknarstofu Háskóla Íslands í lyfja- og eiturefnafræði. Í öllum fjórum tilvikunum var hann metinn óhæfur til að stjórna ökutæki örugglega. Hann var sviptur ökurétti í fifteinte mánuði og gerð fangelsisrefsing. Það var meðal annars lýst í aðsendri grein Vilhjálms á Vísi.

Landsréttur hefur mildað dóm yfir einstaklinginn, sem var dæmdur í héraði fyrir að hafa ekið undir áhrifum slævandi lyfja. Dómurinn sýknaði einstaklinginn af því að hafa ekið undir áhrifum og mildaði dóminn í þrjá mánuði. Í dómi má sjá að matsgerðir Rannsóknarstofu Háskóla Íslands, sem lágu til grundvallar sakfellingar í héraði, nægi ekki einar til að hægt sé að sakfella einstaklinginn fyrir umræddan akstur. Dómurinn var meðal annars vísað til breyttrar dómaframkvæmdar í málum sem þessum á síðustu árum.

Vilhjálmur Vilhjálmsson segir að í forsendum fyrir niðurstöðu sinni sagði Landsréttur meðal annars að hvað sem liði niðurstöðum matsgerða rannsóknarstofu Háskóla Íslands í lyfja- og eiturefnafræði þá yrði ákærði ekki sakfelldur á grundvelli þeirra einna gegn staðfastri neitun ákærða og klínísku mati læknis sem ákærði gekkst undir í kjölfar eins akstursins. Það er ótækt í réttarríki, segir Vilhjálmur, og hann bendir á að ríkissaksóknari hafi eftirlit með framkvæmd ákæruvalds hjá öllum ákærendum.

Vilhálmur skorar á embættið að endurskoða áðurnefnd lögreglumál. Það er meðal þess sem fram kemur í aðsendri grein Vilhálms á Vísi þar sem hann segir ríkið hafa fallið á lyfjaprófi. Það er líka meðal þess sem fram kemur í aðsendri grein Vilhálms á Vísi þar sem hann segir að í ákæru hafi brotin verið talin varða 1. og 2. mgr. 48. grein umferðarlaga, um lyfjaakstur. Áður hafi Héraðsdómur Norðurlands Eystra sakfellt manninn fyrir þessa sömu háttsemi á grundvalli matsgerða rannsóknarstofu Háskóla Íslands, í öllum fjórum tilvikum hafi hann verið metinn óhæfur til að stjórna ökutæki örugglega samkvæmt matstgerð.

Vilhálmur segir að við flutning málsins í Landsrétti hafi sýknukrafa mannsins jafnframt byggt á 6. mgr. 48. greinar umferðarlaga. Þar segi: Ráðherra er heimilt að kveða á um vanhæfismörk með nánari hætti í reglugerð, þ.e. hvenær ökumaður teljist vera óhæfur til að stjórna ökutæki vegna neyslu lyfja. Þrátt fyrir að umferðarlög nr. 77/2019 hafi tekið gildi 1. janúar 2020 hefur innviðaráðherra u.þ.b. 7 árum síðar ekki ennþá séð sér fært að kveða á um ofangreint í reglugerð með tilheyrandi réttaróvissu, réttarspjöllum og röngum sakfellingum. Það er ótækt í réttarríki.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.

Become a Supporter

Go to the primary sources (3)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

3 reports

Morgunblaðið / mbl.is logoMorgunblaðið / mbl.isIndependentLeft6 days ago
Why Should Prosecutors Respond?

A legal expert, Vilhjálmur H. Vilhjálmsson, has called for an investigation into traffic cases involving drivers accused of driving under the influence of medication between January 1, 2020, and the present, where cases were concluded with police settlements or convictions. This request follows a ruling by the Supreme Court in June of last year, which acquitted an individual who had driven four times while under the influence of prescribed medication. The individual was previously convicted by the District Court of North-East Iceland based on assessments from the University of Iceland’s Institute of Pharmaceutical and Food Sciences, which deemed him unfit to drive. Vilhjálmsson argues that the Supreme Court’s decision highlights a flaw in the justice system, as it contradicts the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, which allows authorities to assess impairment due to drug use more strictly. He criticizes the lack of action by the Ministry of Justice over seven years since the relevant law came into effect and calls for the National Prosecution Authority to review all such cases.

Bias read (Left): The article frames the issue as a systemic failure within the justice system, emphasizing the need for reform and criticizing the government's inaction. It uses strong language like 'undemocratic' and highlights the disparity between court rulings and legislative intent, suggesting a critique of the

Vísir logoVísirIndependentCenter6 days ago
The government says they failed a drug test.

Vilhjálmur H. Vilhjálmsson, a high-ranking legal officer, has called on the national prosecution authority to review all traffic cases involving drug impairment since the new traffic laws took effect in 2020. He argues that the government has failed to properly implement these regulations, citing a recent case where a man was acquitted by the Supreme Court despite being deemed unfit to drive four times under the influence of drugs. The district court had previously convicted the man based on assessments from Iceland’s University Research Institute, but the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant should not have been convicted solely on the basis of the institute’s findings and clinical evaluations. Vilhjálmsson highlights that the new traffic law allows authorities to charge drivers for impaired driving more strictly, yet this has not been applied consistently over the past seven years. He emphasizes that the national prosecution office must oversee all such cases to ensure proper enforcement.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a legal critique of the government's implementation of new traffic laws regarding drug impairment. It includes direct quotes from a high-ranking legal official calling for a review of past cases and does not exhibit overtly biased language or selective sourcing. The content is a

Vísir logoVísirIndependentCenter7 days ago
Mats­gerðirnar einar ekki nægar til að sanna akstur undir á­hrifum slævandi lyfja

A man was originally sentenced to four months in prison by the District Court of Northeast Iceland for driving under the influence of drugs on four occasions, including once while driving through a red light. The Supreme Court reduced his sentence to three months, citing insufficient evidence from the Forensic Science Institute at the University of Iceland to prove he was impaired during these incidents. The man admitted to theft and traffic violations but denied being unable to drive due to drug influence in three instances in early 2024 and one in 2025. The court noted that the forensic tests were not conclusive enough to establish impairment, leading to acquittal on those charges. He was still convicted for the offenses he admitted to, including shoplifting.

Bias read (Center): The article reports on a legal case involving a criminal trial and judicial review. It presents the facts of the case, the court's reasoning, and the outcome without overtly favoring any side. The language remains neutral, focusing on the legal process rather than taking a stance on the issue of DUI

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories