The Hagen case – – Trying to evade the law

On Friday, murder defendant Tom Hagen was released after it became clear that the Supreme Court Appeals Committee did not accept the police appeal.

On Saturday, Attorney General Kirsti Guttormsen confirmed to NRK that the Attorney General rejected the police wish to re-arrest Hagen.

The same day, TV 2 wrote that Tom Hagen was refused to move into his home alleging that the police were conducting searches of his home and cabin.

– The police seem to be very creative and consciously undermine the judgment of the Court of Appeal, writes profiled advocate John Christian Elden in an SMS to Dagbladet.

He says he assumes that the Police Department will carry out an evaluation of the legality of the case.

– I am not familiar with the fact that the police have previously tried to circumvent the law in this way.

Facing Dagbladet, Attorney General Guttormsen says she does not want to comment on the search.

– This is the police decision. There are those who can comment on the basis and the legal basis for it. It has become a police case and they can account for it, she says.

communications Øystein Stavdal Paulsen in the Eastern Police District writes the following in an SMS to Dagbladet:

– We do not have more information to give the case now.

– Do not access

Garden defender Svein Holden tells Dagbladet that he is questioning whether the police have the right to conduct these searches.

According to Holden, this is a so-called third-party robbery, which involves police searching the home of someone other than the accused or suspect.

“Given what has happened over the past year and a half, it is natural to take a breath and think carefully about how we will handle the matter later,” he says.

– How do you determine if you think the search is legal?

– This is a legal matter. We treat it like any other legal matter, analyzing the sources of the law. We will do that here too. Immediately, without diving deep into the sauce, my instincts say that the police have no access to do so.

It is unclear when this work will be completed, he says.

– If it turns out that Jusen supports that instinctive feeling, what will be the consequences of this for his cooperation with the police?

– Initially, I will present the reasons for my opinion to the police lawyers. Then we will see how they do it. If they hold their views, we should consider whether we should bring the district court into this discussion.

– Headed to the garden.

Holden says police inform him that a new search decision has been made after the appeals court.

– One question is whether this is indeed a search against Tom Hagen, he says.

The defender believes it is natural to wonder if the rule is used to circumvent the inability to search for Hagen directly.

– The objective of a transaction with a third party is to look for evidence of a possible crime that has taken place.

He notes that the police have already carried out a series of investigations in Sloraveien 4.

– I have a feeling that the investigations that de facto Done is now directed directly at Tom Hagen. And it becomes clear, I think, when we look at the decision against the cabin in Kvitfjell.

– May appear on the door

– If the police have good evidence that they can find evidence in a serious criminal case in your home or in me, they can be allowed to come to our door to search, even if we are not suspects, according to article 192 , third paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Law.

That is what Professor Ørnulf Øyen says to Dagbladet. He works at UiB and is a member of the Criminal Justice and Criminal Procedure Research Group of the Law School.

This is what the Criminal Procedure Law says

– The current arrangement begins with the words “in others”. This is what you call a third party transaction, although that word is a little imprecise.

The question, he says, is who these “others” really are.

– Are there only people who are not suspects? In that case, the third paragraph only provides the authority to search for people who are not suspicious. Or does the provision also include suspicious but not so suspicious people that there is reasonable cause for suspicion under the first paragraph? There are two ways of interpreting the law.

If police conduct a third-party investigation into Hagen’s home while suspecting him in the case, it indicates they interpret the provision in this way, he says.

The professor believes that the debate on Hagen’s research reveals an imprecision in the legal text.

– First of all, this is an interesting legal question. But it reveals that the law is not clearly written. That would have been nice with a clarification on that matter.

For Dagbladet, Elden says he disagrees with the legislative text allowing an interpretation that gives the police the authority to conduct a transaction with a third party in Hagen if it has a suspicious status.

– The prohibition against searching private homes of an accused person, without any suspicion, cannot be ignored, pretending to withdraw the charge. And especially not when you blatantly declare and bramble that he’s still charged, Elden says.

You can request a reconsideration

Ingvild Bruce is a member of the UiO Law School. She investigates, among other things, the access of the security services to the use of hidden coercive means.

– In my opinion, the police have two options if they want to continue searching for Tom Hagen after launch. One is that they ask the court for permission again and get a new evaluation of whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect, he tells Dagbladet.

It is possible if the police have found new evidence after the trial court made its decision on the prison issue, he says.

– The court may find again that there is a different reason. The tax authority also has the opportunity to make such a decision on its own, if it believes that the legal conditions are met, but in such a situation a legal decision would be preferable.

– I’m not sure if that’s okay

The second possibility is a so-called third party transaction.

– In my opinion, it is not clear if this is a simple procedure. As long as you use that rule to directly bypass the rule to search Hagen, you can question it, says Bruce.

Bruce emphasizes that she thinks the law is unclear at this time.

– Depending on the information the police have and what they are looking for, situations may arise in which it is justified to use this rule in such cases, he says.