Norway’s Justice Reforms: A Global Benchmark for Evidence-Led Investigation
Principles recognised as essential to justice integrity are systematic documentation, transparent investigative reasoning, and clear audit trails. The landmark Norwegian inquiry NOU 2026:3 validates this vision – and points to a future where structured, evidence-led practices should become a global standard.
As Børge Hansen, CEO of Davidhorn, observes: “ The handling of the Baneheia case demonstrates the need for reform. As highlighted by the independent committee behind the NOU 2026:3 report, there is a clear and present need to support justice integrity by building robust and systematic documentation, transparent investigative reasoning and clear audit trails. It also emphasises the need for a ‘second pair of eyes’ and greater competence and standardisation, particularly around technical evidence.”
The report’s recommendations shows that investigative technology must do more than simply record – it must actively support rigorous, transparent reasoning that can withstand independent scrutiny. NOU 2026:3 sets out precisely what that scrutiny demands.
Summary
- Norwegian inquiry NOU 2026:3 calls for a fundamental shift from suspicion-based investigations to systematic testing of competing explanations
- Report identifies confirmation bias as central risk and recommends structured documentation of multiple hypotheses and investigative reasoning
- Børge Hansen links reforms to Baneheia case, emphasising need for robust documentation, transparent reasoning and “second pair of eyes” approach
- Technology must actively support rigorous, transparent reasoning that withstands independent scrutiny – not just record events
- If implemented, reforms could place Norway at forefront of international efforts towards transparent, evidence-led justice systems
A major government inquiry into wrongful convictions might transform how criminal investigations are conducted in Norway, carrying implications far beyond its borders.
The report, NOU 2026:3, calls for a fundamental shift in investigative practice – from building cases around suspicion to systematically testing competing explanations. Investigators must actively challenge their own assumptions, document their reasoning, and ensure that their conclusions can be independently scrutinised.
The inquiry identifies confirmation bias – the tendency to favour information that supports an existing belief – as a central risk to investigative accuracy. It recommends structured methods that require investigators to formulate, test, and document multiple hypotheses and to clearly record how conclusions were reached.
The report also emphasises the need for increased transparency and accountability. Stronger documentation of investigative reasoning, it concludes, is essential to ensure that courts and oversight bodies can properly evaluate the reliability of evidence.
Built on decades of reform
These recommendations build on reforms that began roughly 25 years ago with the introduction of the KREATIV investigative interviewing model in Norway. Developed to move police work away from confession-driven approaches, the model emphasised open-minded inquiry and systematic evaluation of evidence.
Since then, these principles have been further developed through research, professional training, and national police education, leading to a gradual shift towards more structured, evidence-led investigative practices.
The inquiry also highlights the growing role of technology in strengthening investigative reliability. Beyond recording court proceedings, it recommends digital systems that can document investigative reasoning, organise complex evidence, and create clear audit trails showing how conclusions were reached. Such tools, the report suggests, could help investigators test competing hypotheses more systematically, reduce the risk of bias, and ensure that decisions remain transparent and reviewable.
From national tragedy to international example
The inquiry follows a series of tragic miscarriages of justice that have profoundly affected those involved and shaken confidence in the justice system. Yet observers suggest the reforms could turn those failures into a driver for progress.
If implemented, the recommendations may place Norway at the forefront of international efforts to create more transparent, reliable, and evidence-led justice systems.
Dr Ivar Fahsing, who, together with Dr Asbjørn Rachlew and Prof. Karl Ask, submitted an expert opinion to the commission on investigative practice and the evaluation of evidence, says the report represents an important milestone.
“I am impressed by the clearness and ambition of the recommendations,” he said. “If they are implemented, this could lead to a significantly safer and more evidence-led justice process.”
He added that the report demonstrates a deeper intellectual shift in how investigations and the evaluation of evidence are understood.
“It reflects a crucial convergence of philosophy, psychology and law – recognising that once an accusation is made, it becomes a knowledge claim that must be rigorously and transparently tested. In today’s highly complex information society, more structured methods and the responsible use of new technologies are essential to ensure that the reasoning behind criminal justice decisions is clearly documented and open to scrutiny. This requires all actors – from investigators to prosecutors – to demonstrate how alternative explanations consistent with innocence have been carefully examined and excluded. By making the pathway to proof explicit, this approach strengthens the burden of proof and reaffirms a foundational principle of justice, rooted in early Roman law, that the responsibility to prove guilt rests entirely with the accuser. Its full implementation would place Norway at the forefront of international legal reform, setting a new benchmark for transparency, accountability and evidential integrity in criminal justice.”
