The man was remanded in custody for two weeks with isolation and a ban on letters and visits. Defender Anne Marstrander-Berg says that she has discussed them with him and that they are not appealing the decision. – He understands that the police want to investigate more, but he agrees with me that we believe there is no risk of evidence being tampered with, she says. – Had drunk vodka The 30-year-old explained in the court hearing that he started drinking vodka on Saturday at 19:00-20:00. His lawyer says he has explained that he had been drinking at home before he left. – Then he drank in the city and then he doesn’t know what happened when he left there, but he was driving the car he came with, says Marstrander-Berg. – I barely remember getting into the car and driving to Steinkjer, the accused himself explained in court. He pleaded guilty to both manslaughter and reckless driving, although he said he did not remember much of what had happened. During the court hearing, the accused appeared hesitant. He said he did not remember the car hitting the pavement. It was a dramatic night on Sunday in Steinkjer. In the city center a van had run over people. One person was seriously injured and later died from his injuries. Photo: Privat / NTB Said he regrets The accused said in court that he regretted so much that he had nightmares. When the prosecutor asked what he regretted, he replied: – That I am responsible for a person’s death. That I’m so stupid that I drink and drive, replied the 30-year-old. He added that he was a bad role model for his daughter. – I must be punished when I have done something wrong, said the 30-year-old. Sent snap messages The accused explained in court that he sent snap messages to all his 20 snap friends, apart from his mother, earlier in the evening. – I asked if anyone wanted to drive my car, be a driver into the city, but no one answered, he said. – I think it is one of the good arguments that this is not an intentional act, said defender Marstrander-Berg. Was not granted The prosecution requested imprisonment for four weeks, but was not granted. – Although the extent of the case is currently unclear, the court cannot see that four weeks’ detention is necessary with the present charge.
ttn-69