Man acquitted of gross sexual assault against 4-year-old

A man in his 50s was accused of touching the genitals of a 4-year-old girl.
He was sentenced by the district court for gross sexual abuse – but now he is acquitted in the Court of Appeal.
The investigation is not considered sufficiently “robust”, writes Dagens Juridik.

The man was charged with rape of a child, alternatively gross sexual abuse of a child or sexual molestation of a child – and was convicted of gross sexual abuse in the district court.

Now he is acquitted of all charges in the Court of Appeal. That because the investigation is not considered robust enough, writes Dagens Juridik.

The man himself has denied any wrongdoing.

Described how the man took the “necklace”

According to the girl, who was four years old at the time of the crime, the man poked outside and inside her panties. She describes in questioning how the man has touched her “necklace”. She says that she tried to move and that the man has pushed “very hard” and that it has “hurt a lot”.

The girl also stated that the man told her not to tell about the incident.

Her guardians corroborated the story when the girl told them the man poked her clit. They also tell how the girl’s abdomen was red and irritated and that her mood must have changed after the incident.

Assessed as credible

The girl’s story was judged by the district court to be credible and reliable based on her age. The girl’s words together with the guardians’ observations made the district court judge that there had been sexual contact.

However, the man was never convicted of child rape because it was not established beyond reasonable doubt that he touched the plaintiff “in the neck” or that the act involved a violation that can be compared to sexual intercourse.

The man was convicted instead of gross sexual abuse of a child, the district court held that it could be shown that he “intentionally touched the plaintiff’s abdomen with his finger(s). The penalty was one year and eight months in prison.

Now the man is completely freed. The Court of Appeal considers that the investigation is not robust enough to be the basis for a conviction.