[ad_1]
THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES: Police have been at Tom Hagen’s home every day since he was released and he has not been allowed to return to his home. Also on Friday morning, the police were in Sloraveien. Photo: TORE KRISTIANSEN
Police gave the green light to the district court to continue the search for the home of murder victim Tom Hagen and the missing wife. VG’s attorneys have disagreed about whether it is a correct decision.
Following Tom Hagen’s release, the police maintained his home as a homicide and refused to move him to his home. Every day since the release, the police have been investigating the house in Fjellhamar in Lørenskog.
On Thursday, the Lower Roman District Court considered whether the police should continue.
The court said yes to the police investigation to continue. They assume that there is reasonable cause to suspect that a murder may have occurred and that the action may have taken place in the home.
The decision came after Hagens’ defender Svein Holden requested that the search be stopped because he considers it invalid.
PUBLISHED FOR A WEEKLY SIDE: The district court ruled Thursday that police may continue to search for Tom Hagen’s residence. Photo: Gisle Oddstad
– Innovative line
The question is whether the police are allowed to make a so-called third-party transaction. Now you are looking for a third party transaction in a place that belongs to someone who is not a suspect or accused in a criminal case.
Lawyer John Christian Elden tells VG that, in principle, you can make a transaction with a third party, but in his opinion, not against an accused person.
– There are stricter requirements to investigate an accused person and that it can be incriminated than for searches of people who consider themselves not involved in the case.
– You mean there are reasons to appeal?
– You need to be defended. The District Court has embarked on an innovative line of expanded access to law enforcement.
Background: The disappearance of Lørenskog month by month
Disagree: Attorney John Christian Elden does not believe that a third party transaction cannot be made against an accused person. Photo: Gisle Oddstad
– Suitable for appeal
Tom Hagens’ advocate Svein Holden told VG on Thursday that they have not considered whether to appeal the decision, but that he believes it is unclear whether the district court police are correct.
Lawyer Geir Lippestad believes the decision is appropriate for the appeal, he writes to VG in an SMS after reading the court ruling.
Explains that the legal clause has been used by the court, says that the third party transaction can take place in others when there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a serious criminal offense on the property, although there is no reasonable cause to suspect the accused.
– My assessment is that this decision is appropriate for appeal. The court has concluded that there are several reasons to suspect that a criminal act has been committed on the defendant’s property, but I miss a broader discussion of the term “other” by the court.
Therefore, as Lippestad understands the term, the section that the court has based on a third-party search cannot be used to allow the police to search Hagen’s home.
– A natural linguistic understanding of the term “other” is that it refers to something other than the accused. I also believe that the lawmaker supports this view. That means there is no legal basis to use this legal basis to register the defendant’s property, he says.
ÅSTED: More than a year and a half have passed since Anne-Elisabeth Hagen disappeared from the couple’s residence in Sloraveien. Last summer, the police changed their main hypothesis that she would be killed. Photo: Jørgen Braastad
also read
Family and friends about Anne-Elisabeth Hagen: – A beautiful person
– Complete and convincing
In the court ruling, Hagen is found to believe that decisions about third-party transactions are “An attempt to circumvent the Court of Appeals decision on suspicion and that the search remains part of an investigation directed at Tom Hagen.”
The court, for its part, considers that the argument that there is no basis for third-party transactions in places that Hagen has “It would provide stronger protection against searching for suspects where the suspicion does not exceed the threshold reasonably different from witnesses or others who removed a location where the act in question is suspected to have occurred.”
“I find the court’s assessment to be quite comprehensive and compelling,” says attorney Mette Yvonne Larsen.
It explains that a transaction with a third party is not uncommon and that the provision assumes that there is evidence that it can be confiscated.
– The court has considered that the house may be a scene of a murder, and I do not see that it has anything to do with the evaluation that emerges from the ruling. I don’t know the evidence, but it seems clear that the court has found that the terms of the third-party search were met, she says.
