Participated in road blockades • Criticism: “Confidence in the judicial system is damaged”
A climate scientist who participated in road blockades is acquitted in the district court because he was considered to be acting in an emergency to save the planet.
It now appears that the one juror who acquitted himself is involved in climate politics – and that he previously described the world situation as a “climate emergency”.
– It is very unfortunate, trust in the judicial system is damaged, says Claes Sandberg, lawyer and professor emeritus at Stockholm University,
The attention-grabbing case concerns an environmental scientist who was acquitted in the district court. He was charged with disobedience to law enforcement after participating in two climate actions where roads were blocked.
The researcher himself said that he acted in an emergency because he has a duty to pay attention and act on what he describes as an acute emergency due to climate change.
Criticized: Very unfortunate
Two of the jurors chose to acquit the researcher.
One, who was nominated by the left-wing party, is himself involved in climate politics. In a motion in which he is a co-author, he and four others write that the Left Party must take the crisis more seriously and calls it a “climate emergency”. The authors give a number of suggestions on how this should happen and write that it is not a normal state but a situation where strong decisions are required.
Now Claes Sandgren, lawyer and professor emeritus at Stockholm University, criticizes the verdict and believes that political motivations may have played a role.
– As far as I can understand, that is what has happened in this case. It is very unfortunate, trust in the justice system is damaged, says Claes Sandgren to TV4 Nyheterna.
“Could be good”
Claes Sandgren has previously criticized the system of jurors in the district court.
– The juror institute has obvious shortcomings, and one such flaw is that some jurors are influenced by their private opinions in their judgment.
However, whether it could be considered a joke is unclear, says Sandgren.
– It is clearly inappropriate in the first place, but it could be fine.
I am sure that the verdict will be changed in the Court of Appeal
Anne Ramberg, lawyer and former secretary general of the Swedish Bar Association, has previously criticized the fact that the committee members are appointed by political parties.
She points out that it is the jurors’ responsibility to raise the alarm if there is a risk of abuse.
– All judges, jurors are judges too, they have personal opinions and values in all matters, they must be allowed to have that – but if you think it affects the assessment, you shouldn’t sit on it.
– The chairman cannot keep track of every single member of the committee and know which organizations they are part of or what opinions they have.
However, Anne Ramberg is sure that the environmental scientist will be convicted in the Court of Appeal.
– The excitement will subside because the verdict will be changed in the Court of Appeal. Jury verdicts are quite rare and in the vast majority of cases they do not stand up in the Court of Appeal. You shouldn’t worry too much.
TV4 Nyheterna has applied for the juror.