Monday 19 January, approximately 18:30: A man runs into the Esso station at Haugerud in Oslo and seeks cover behind the counter. He is scared and upset when he asks the employees to lock the doors.
“My friend was shot in the head up by the high-rise block on Haugerud. He is dead “, he tells an employee at the station who does not doubt for a second that the saved man is telling the truth.
A few minutes earlier, the shaken man was sitting behind the wheel of a Mercedes. In the passenger seat sat comrade Mohammed Javed. In the back seat sat Stig Millehaugen.
– RØMLING: Stig Millehaugen on his way out on leave from Trondheim prison on Wednesday morning. He did not return when he was due. Photo: Police
–
According to the verdict from the Oslo District Court, Millehaugen first shot Javed in the back of the head.
Immediately, the comrade behind the wheel managed to storm out of the car. Notch in the heel followed Millehaugen for several meters. The man who was persecuted is convinced that he was tried for shooting, but that the weapon tickled, but this has not been proven.
After the murder, Millehaugen drove the car a short distance before he lit the vehicle with Javed inside.
“Your little shit”
According to the police, the background for the murder was a settlement between the criminal gangs Young Guns and the B-gang. Javed and his friend belonged to Young Guns, while the police believe that a person associated with the B-gang had hired Millehaugen to kill the two.
Javed’s surviving comrade was among those shot in the much-discussed gang showdown at Aker Brygge in 2006. He was himself convicted of shooting B-gang leader Ghulam Abbas a few years later.
The assassin was arrested the same evening by six top-trained police officers from the Emergency Response Troop.
In the trial, there was a very strong atmosphere between Millehaugen and Javed’s friend who survived by fleeing to the Esso station. Words like “whore kid” and “your little shit” were among the words that fell when they met in court.
– NOISE: During the trial, a fight broke out between gang members on either side of the war. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB
–
Millehaugen accused the deceased’s comrade of being behind the murder, but he was not believed. The comrade became a key witness who made sure that Stig Millehaugen was sentenced to 21 years in prison for the murder.
Knew nothing
Wednesday morning, when Stig Millehaugen had served just over 13 years for the murder of Haugerud, he ran away during a leave from Trondheim prison.
The comrade who survived the assassination attempt does not want to give any statements, but associate lawyer Sugin Varaharajan speaks on his behalf.
They react strongly to lack of information.
– We think it is very unfortunate that the Prison and Probation Service has neither notified my client nor me that Millehaugen has been out on leave. It is quite common procedure to notify victims in criminal cases about this. That one first reads about this in the media is very unfortunate, says Varaharajan and adds:
– RESPONSE: The lawyer for the comrade of the late Mohammed Javed, Sugin Varaharajan. Photo: Lauritz Rushfeldt Vatne / TV2
–
– Right now the focus is on putting in place the necessary measures to secure him and his family.
– What measures are we talking about?
– I can not go into that, for the sake of his safety.
Varaharajan also says that they have had contact with the police, but will not say anything about what they have discussed in the conversations.
Acting director of Kriminalomsorgen Nord, Tore Råen, is confronted with the criticism from lawyer Varaharajan.
– Make assessments
He says that at present he does not have full clarity in which assessments were made before Millehaugen was granted leave.
– An assessment is made in each individual case as to whether it is relevant to notify the aggrieved party of leave. But there is certainly no automaticity in it, it depends a bit on what is the purpose of the leave and how long it lasts.
It is such assessments that are made. Råen says the wording in the guidelines on notification is that it must be notified “if it is of significance to the offended party”.
– And in that there is an assessment of what is considered important, where an overall assessment is made. At present, I do not have information on what assessment has been made in this specific case.
Furthermore, Råen says that there are various factors that can influence whether a leave should be reported or not.
– There may well be a number of conditions related to the implementation of the leave, for example where the leave is granted. Then the alert is set up against it. The time perspective on leave is also a factor here, and it also affects the appropriateness of notifying. But unfortunately I can not answer what has been done and what assessments have been made in this case.
–
