The prosecution believes it is striking that the defendant has focused on his dog and not on the child who was killed. – A child is born helpless with no way to protect itself. It is at the mercy of the adults who have to look after it. This is what the prosecutor, state prosecutor Magnus Schartum-Hansen, said in his final proceedings in the Østre Innlandet district court on Friday. The woman in her 50s is charged under Section 280 of the Criminal Code for negligently causing the death of another. Her Rottweiler attacked and killed her one-year-old and eight-month-old grandson in Brumunddal in June 2021. She is also charged with violating the Dog Act. The prosecution believes that the woman fundamentally failed to secure the child and that she was deliberately and grossly negligent. According to the prosecutor, there are weighty and general preventive considerations in favor of the woman being punished with unconditional imprisonment. In the penalty plea, emphasis has been placed on the fact that the defendant has also lost his grandchild. – Having a dog means having a big responsibility. The dog owner must ensure that the dog does not harm people. Dogs should only be loose if they are followed up and controlled in a careful manner, said the prosecutor. PUT DOWN: The Rottweiler Nestor was put down after it attacked and killed a small boy in Brumunddal in June 2021. Now the owner is being prosecuted for negligently causing the death of a person. Photo: POLITIET / The police – Behaved negligently He believes there is no doubt that the defendant acted negligently and did not look out well enough. – The boy is caught in a situation he cannot escape. He has no chance against the big animal. Out in the garden he is bitten to death, said Schartum-Hansen. The prosecutor believes that the dog owner clearly knew that the Rottweiler was dangerous. He reviewed several of the previous cases where the dog allegedly injured children. – The dog has injured children before, bit children on the head without any clear provocation. The defendant knows this. Nevertheless, she keeps the dog, “her child” as she calls it. She neglects or glosses over warnings. At the same time she looks after several smaller children. That means she can be blamed for what happened, said the prosecutor. He believes it is striking how the defendant and witnesses who are close to her have focused on the dog and how safe it was – and not on the child. – It is surprising that they did not have as much focus on the child. Even the deceased’s father tries to downplay the dog’s dangerousness, the prosecutor said. PROSECUTOR AND ASSISTANT LAWYER: The prosecutor, state attorney Magnus Schartum-Hansen, in conversation with assistant attorney Inger Johanne Reiestad Hansen in the court in Hamar. Photo: Alexander Nordby / news Believes the dog should have been euthanized The prosecutor believes the previous incidents with the dog are clear evidence that it was dangerous and that the defendant should have taken action long ago. – My view is that she should have killed the dog after the first incident in 2016. She chooses not to get rid of the dog. She accepts the dangerous situation. She puts the children in a life-threatening situation, said Schartum-Hansen. Twice in 2016, once in 2017 and once in 2019, the dog is said to have injured children. – There was an imminent danger of repetition. What is happening is a predicted disaster, said the prosecutor. He believes the defendant was aware of the dog’s dangerousness and that she herself has previously raised the question of euthanasia. The prosecutor also said in court that the security measures around the rottweiler were obviously not good enough. ILLUSTRATION: The prosecutor believes that the dog lifted the boy by the head over the gate and killed him outside in the back garden. Illustration: the police Denied guilt The Rottweiler attacked the little boy while the defendant, who is the boy’s grandmother, was looking after three of the grandchildren. According to the indictment, the defendant’s two dogs got loose in the garden, while the children were playing on the other side of the house. A gate had been erected between the open veranda door and the living room. SKILLE: This gate was supposed to prevent the dogs from entering the house. Photo: The police The boy who was attacked is said to have entered the house and to the door and gate, and there the rottweiler got hold of him. The boy was bitten in the head and died. The defendant and a neighbor arrived quickly and tried to get the dog to release the boy, but it was too late. The grandmother is accused of negligently causing the death of another, but has pleaded not guilty. – The defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt – It is easy to get carried away by the incident on 5 June 2021. But my client must be judged based on the insight she had before this happened, said defense attorney Jens-Henrik Lien. In court, he said that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. DEFENDER: Lawyer Jens-Henrik Lien is defending the accused dog owner. Photo: Alexander Nordby / news He believes that the requirement for fencing in the Dogs Act implies that the animal must not be able to get out of the enclosure. If this is secured, a dog can run loose in the enclosure. He believes that this must be taken as a basis in this case and that the dog was therefore secured in relation to the law’s requirements. The family is divided Assistance lawyer Inger Johanne Reiestad Hansen represents the mother of the murdered boy. She has previously said that the mother will demand compensation of NOK 200,000 from the defendant. But after hearing the testimony and the woman’s own explanation, she is now increasing the demand. In court on Friday, she made a claim that the defendant should, for example, pay NOK 250,000 in compensation. – She has lost the most precious thing a mother has, namely her child, said the legal aid lawyer in court on Friday. Reiestad Hansen believes it has been proven that the dog owner has acted grossly negligently. She believes the security measures around the dog were very inadequate. She compared the woman’s rottweiler to a weapon: – Do we have loaded weapons lying unsecured in the house. No we have not. Even unloaded weapons must be locked up, said Reiestad Hansen. The boy’s mother has explained that she was afraid of the dog and that she asked the defendant to be very careful when the children were with her. The son of the defendant supports his own mother and believes, like several other family members, that the dog was a kind and good family dog. Recommended to euthanize During the trial, two veterinarians have testified. They both believed that the dog should have been euthanized after it bit a three-year-old girl in the face in 2016. During the trial, it emerged that there had been several episodes after this, in which the Rottweiler has injured children. The accused woman has previously explained that she has not been advised to kill the dog. Veterinarian Birgitta Blohmann says that is not true. She tells news that she told the woman that she should kill the dog after the attack on the 3-year-old girl in 2016. – Yes, I told the owner.
ttn-69
Procedures in the trial against a woman from Brumunddal who is charged after a dog killed a boy – news Innlandet – Local news, TV and radio
