7. Some concluding remarks
From the facts presented in the judgment, it is not difficult for the reader to follow the reasoning that led to Mr. A’s imprisonment for his contribution to the unlawful export of the vessel for beaching in Pakistan. Obviously, the people involved were aware of the problems with scrapping there, and if they did not know the exact rules, they – including Mr. A – were clearly blameworthy for not clarifying whether the planned export was lawful.
The aspect that calls for some additional remarks concern the complexity of the rules that may give rise to problems for other people, without the same background to those involved in the Harrier case. It is sufficient to recall that the Pollution Act Section 79 refers to Section 31 and 32 of the same Act, and that Section 31 empowers further regulation, which at that time meant Regulation 930/2004. In that Regulation Section 13‑1, we have a further reference to a number of EU documents. These EU documents are not easily “digested”. The technique now indicated is not in line with the traditional Norwegian way of promulgating rules that are punishable if not followed. However, over recent years, this tradition has been deviated from at an increasing speed – in order to implement EU rules. Such implementation is challenging, but the present writer is of the opinion that “a fair balance” has not so far been struck.