[ad_1]
ACCESS REJECTED: Police have blocked Tom Hagen’s residence in Sloraveien from searching. Photo: Tore Kristiansen
Tom Hagen, 70, is unable to return home despite being released. According to law professor Alf Petter Høgberg, it can be risky for the police.
The Court of Appeals ruled this week that there is no reasonable reason to suspect Tom Hagen (70) of the murder of his wife Anne-Elisabeth Hagen. He was released on Friday afternoon after being in custody for a week.
Police appealed the ruling, but it was rejected by the Supreme Court, and one would think that Hagen is now a free man with free access to his property. Then it is not.
The police have adopted what is known as a third-party transaction, and deny access to the ham in the house in Sloraveien and the cottage in Kvitfjell. Search of both properties is prohibited, a decision that makes Hagens’ defender Svein Holden respond.
It was NRK who first mentioned the case.
– I’m not sure if the police are allowed to do this this way, while Tom Hagen is a suspect in their eyes. This is a question that we are about to investigate. This is a legal problem, Holden told VG.
INTERPRETED: On Thursday, the police conducted investigations at Tom Hagen’s cabin in Kvitfjell. Photo: Tore Kristiansen
– Unable to monitor or listen
Professor of Law Alf Petter Høgberg at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law agrees with Holden’s statement.
He says the starting point is such that when the court has concluded that there is no reasonable reason to suspect Hagen of murder or complicity in the murder, the police cannot retain the property.
– They can’t monitor or listen to it either. But they also have a place to do, which may have regained appeal after the second arrest.
They may be unfortunate tactics
Following the Court of Appeals decision, police made a new arrest Thursday. A man in his 30s from Romerike was charged with murder or complicity in the murder of Anne-Elisabeth Hagen. He was released by the police on Saturday afternoon.
Late Saturday night, it emerged that the charge against the man had changed to kidnapping.
read also
New arrest in the Lørenskog case: man in his 30-year-old murder case
Høgberg asks if the police could have presented an unfortunate tactic.
– If the other person’s arrest had occurred earlier, the case may have been different. But it is difficult for us to know something about it.
The law professor emphasizes that he believes the police have no reason to deny Hagen access to the cabin, and that the restriction on the house is within a gray area.
– The court has found that there is no different reason for the suspicion, and then the police must respect it. It has happened in the past that the police have been punished for such decisions, so this is certainly a risk.
You think the text of the law is not clear enough
Bergen University law professor Ørnulf Øyen believes the text of the law is not clear enough to say clearly whether or not the police are allowed to search under the rules on third-party transactions, thus denying Hagen access to his own house.
Searching for third parties in a dwelling, room or place of residence to obtain evidence may be carried out “with others”, as long as there is reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed that may lead to a custodial sentence.
read also
Crime expert on the Hagen ruling: – Cold shower for the police
– If we look at linguistics, the law does not clarify how the word “other” should be interpreted. Linguistically, it doesn’t seem very clear to me whether the word “other” also includes suspicious people, but not so strong that there is reasonable cause for suspicion, he says.
May affect evidence findings
The professor himself does not have a definitive opinion on what is the correct interpretation of the provision, but he believes that it is not a cure to try this directly in a criminal case.
– As for the evidence found, the question might arise whether the search was illegal. It can affect access to use of any evidence found, he says.
