The public prosecutor has today appealed the so-called “snippadom” where a man was acquitted of rape against a ten-year-old girl because, according to the court of appeals, it was unclear what the girl meant by the word snippa. – I want the Supreme Court to remove the Court of Appeal’s judgment and return this case to the Court of Appeal for a new trial, says Attorney General Petra Lundh to TV4. Petra Lundh wants the Supreme Court to clarify what obligation the Court of Appeal has to clarify words or concepts in the description of the act. – The child’s story, with words and body language, cannot be interpreted in any other way than that she means that the man has inserted a finger into her genitals. The man should therefore be sentenced according to the indictment for rape of children in two cases to three years in prison, says Attorney General Petra Lundh in the press release. The Attorney General also wants the Supreme Court to examine what obligation the court has to include alternative classifications within the context of the description of the act – and what obligation according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child the court has to clarify what the child means by words or concepts that are unclear to the court. – The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law since 2020, which means that courts must take into account the rights that follow from the convention when assessing cases involving children, concludes Petra Lundh.
t4-general
"The snipe court" appealed to HD: “Considers that several errors were committed”
