It is not a little presumptuous, not to say bloated, as juriststudenten Matilda Almelöv say that other professionals and citizens should refrain from comments about our legal system. I want to say on the contrary: our legal system is too important to be solely managed and controlled by the lawyers.
any person with normal sense of justice should and must speak out about justice issues, and especially if the case is of great public interest and who has not previously been tested in a court of law. The case Arnault is a very good example.
Here is a number of big question marks that do not appear to have been taken into account or valued at the hovrättsdomen.
is the duration. How can the woman take eight years to report the rape, and what is the value of an old testimony? How can the court of appeal judge almost exclusively on the woman’s testimony?
How have the political views (metoo) influenced the court of appeal in its decision?
Why is a trial, with so high interest to the public, behind closed doors?
How much have the members of the court of appeal affected by the anonymous testimony, the media coverage, other recent court cases and ill-considered political demands?
How has the recently decided samtyckeslagen affected the judgement and punishment length?
as I have not had sensible answers on the with the conviction or the media reporting.
all in all, this creates a not insignificant concern in people with normal sense of justice, not least against the background of the failures of our legal system has delivered in recent years. Do I need to remind about Sture Bergwall, Kaj Linna, and now the latest Esa Teittinen?
Columnist at dagens nyheter’s leader board Lena Andersson criticises, and rightly, in his article, these fact. She questions the sammanhangslösa in the judgment, but also other deficiencies. You do not need to be juristutbildad to do this.
with this thing to do is unclear. Lena Andersson, ”hobbyjuristen”, looking down on her future (?) colleagues have no basis in fact. What LA, in fact, makes in his text is to remind us who is interested in justice, about the importance of putting into bevisskärvorna in a reasonable context, to recreate a credible history.
There are better examples of the rule of law works than the judgment against Arnault. And yet, we have not seen the last act.
