Requires legislative change following Supreme Court decision – NRK Trøndelag – Local News, TV and Radio

– That the consideration for the investigation outweighs the explanation of why a one-year-old dies suddenly and unexpectedly, is wrong, incomprehensible and shameful.

This is what Malin Albrechtsen van der Hagen, legal advisor to the Stine Sofies Foundation says.

The reason they are now demanding a change in the law is a recent Supreme Court decision, that the police will not have access to tissue samples that can solve the infant death at Vanvikan in Trøndelag in 2013.

– The reason we react is that we see that children who have died in sudden death do not have sufficient legal protection. This must be changed so that such cases do not reappear.

Tissue samples in research biobank

It was in 2013 that a one-year-old boy was found dead in his bed at Vanvikan in Trøndelag.

Police suspect he was poisoned with formic acid, and the boy’s father is charged with bodily injury resulting in death.

In connection with the research, tissue samples were taken from the child, which is in a research biobank.

Police believe the evidence can help show whether or not the child died.

Therefore, the Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s desire to access NTNU’s tissue samples.

Attorney John Christian Elden was NTNU’s attorney in the case. He was satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court. Elden has argued that the legislation should protect the people involved in the investigation.

If the investigation is possible and people must collaborate with investigators, there is no risk that the police or others will subsequently extract or use the investigative material as evidence in individual cases, Elden wrote in an email to NRK earlier this week. .

– Outlaw children

– It is difficult to understand how Norway can have legislation that completely excludes dead children from the courts, says Van der Hagen.

It is also difficult for him to understand how public confidence in research can outweigh the legal certainty of children.

The Sanitary Research Law absolutely prohibits the disclosure of biological material. This was what was emphasized in the Supreme Court.

Van der Hagen believes that exceptions can be made in the Health Research Act, but then a regulation must be adopted.

– There is a hole in the law here that must be closed immediately. Politicians must be in the field for us to get an amendment to the law that allows specimen delivery in the event of sudden and unexpected child deaths.

Receive support from the prosecutor

The foundation is supported by Chief State Prosecutor Bjørn Kristian Soknes at the Trøndelag State Prosecutor’s Office.

He believes that the Attorney General will take the initiative for a change in regulations. This can facilitate access to biological material in serious criminal cases.

– There are no clear rules for this today, neither in the law nor in the regulations. If they are opened for such access, it could lead to a new request being submitted for the delivery of tissue samples related to the boy’s death in Vanvikan, Soknes says.

– This can help clarify the cause of the child’s death.

You want a change in the law with retroactive effect

Since the infant death in Vanvikan in 2013, the storage time for these autopsy samples has changed. At that time, the samples taken at the autopsy were destroyed after three years, today the samples are stored for 25 years.

If that guideline were applicable when this child died, the samples would be available to the police.

– The death of a child in Vanvikan is a clear and flagrant example of legislation that undermines trust in the judicial system. It is not in line with what we believe to be people’s sense of justice, says van der Hagen in Stine Sofies Stiftelse.

– For the child in the Vanvikan case, we expect a change in the law with retroactive effect, he concludes.