[ad_1]
The man who is charged with negligent manslaughter after driving on a 13-year-old boy at Haugenstua in Oslo on Thursday has been in pretrial detention for four weeks.
Flowers and candles in Haugenstua, at the site where 13-year-old Dhenujen Yogathas was attacked on Thursday night. The boy died in Ullevål hospital on Friday afternoon. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB
There were many who made the trip on Saturday where the 13-year-old was beaten by Haugenstua. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB
The 31-year-old admits to running over the speed sweater, according to the Oslo District Court prison sentence.
The district court concludes that it is likely that he was under the influence of drugs when he ran over the 13-year-old, although the defendant denies this.
In the defendant’s car, the police found a bottle containing the narcotic GHB.
GHB has intoxicating effects like mood swings, lack of criticism, and weakened control. The drug also has calming effects such as cognitive decline, lethargy and fatigue, according to the Oslo University Hospital.
– In a panic
The accused is subject to letter and visit control during the four weeks.
The defendant has admitted that he drove the 13-year-old, but does not admit criminal guilt upon indictment.
The defendant has explained in district court that he escaped the collision because he panicked.
The driver said in his police statement that it was dark, wet and slippery during the trip.
He explained that just before the accident he saw three pedestrians walking down the road.
According to the defendant, the three people left the road and suddenly came out onto the road again.
Dhenujen Yogathas, 13, was beaten on Thursday night.
On Friday afternoon, the 13-year-old boy died in Ullevål hospital. The assistance attorney says the boy’s family is in a very difficult situation.
The court concludes that the 31-year-old was explained incorrectly when it was first explained to the police.
District court: danger of evidence being destroyed
The district court agrees with the prosecution that there is a risk that evidence will be lost.
Among other things, the defendant would have had the opportunity to speak with his wife, and thus influence her, if he had not been in custody, the district court writes.
The defendant’s wife has already been questioned. She will probably be summoned for further questioning, although she, as a close relative, is not required to appear for questioning.
According to the sentence, there is also the real possibility that the defendant – if he was not in preventive detention – could have influenced the explanations of second people you have been in contact with after the collision.
