Rixstep
	`About \| ACP \| Buy \| Industry Watch \| Learning Curve \| News \| Products \| Search \| Substack`

Home » Industry Watch

Swedish Magistrates Condemn Göran Lambertz

Calls for scandal SC justice to resign.

Get It

Try It

DUCKPOND (Rixstep) — Swedish supreme court justice Göran Lambertz should resign, says Anders Alenskär, chairman of the court employee section of JUSEK, a Swedish union for magistrates, political scientists, and economists.

'After seeing his spectacle in the televised debate on the Quick case, we are ashamed of him, and we can no longer sit idly by as he continues to disgrace his office and damage confidence in the Swedish court system.'

Lambertz is desperate to save his own reputation and that of his friend Claes Borgström, the lawyer who kickstarted the persecution of Julian Assange. Borgström is the Quick defence attorney who never tried to defend his client, and Lambertz is the former chancellor for justice who dismissed inquiries into the Quick case in 2006, purportedly absorbing 50,000 pages of case documentation in 8 days.

[He's since admitted on camera only this week that it's only now he's beginning to study those materials. Ed.]

Anders Alenskär, magistrate of the district court in Umeå in the north of Sweden, accuses Lambertz of unethical behaviour by trying to again implicate Quick (today using his real name Bergwall) in the crimes for which he's now been fully acquitted.

'He's unskilled, unprofessional, and is playing private detective, all in order to exonerate himself', says Alenskär.

Lambertz continues to appear on television in the ongoing coverage of the Quick scandal, Sweden's biggest judicial scandal ever (not counting the Assange scandal). And Borgström continues to coach him behind the scenes before each appearance.

Anders Alenskär says Lambertz behaviour is shocking.

'Quick should never have been convicted. This is the biggest judicial scandal in Swedish history.'

Further Condemnations

Swedish magistrates very rarely criticise each other in the media, but many are now commenting openly on Göran Lambertz.

'The obsessive viewpoints of supreme court justice Göran Lambertz are damaging confidence in our court system, and particularly for our supreme court', says Per Kjellsson, chairman of Sweden's Magistrates Association.

'I've started to wonder what's behind his odd behaviour', says Kjellsson.

Kjellsson believes it has something to do with Lambertz' slipshod work with the Quick case back in 2006. 'That decision of his [that there was nothing wrong in the matter] was a disaster', continues Kjellsson.

'It's very unfortunate that he refuses to accept the facts that led to all the Quick cases being overturned. This is damaging confidence in our justice system, particularly for our supreme court.'

Maria Abrahamsson, director of the Magistrates Association, also says Lambertz is damaging the court system.

'That he gets so obsessive about the Quick case shows he has very poor judgement. He can privately think what he wants about the cases, but he shouldn't air such views, now that Quick has been totally exonerated.'

Lennart Svensäter, president of the appellate court for Scania and Blekinge, feels the same way.

'If one makes a decision to reopen a case, and that results in the person no longer being convicted of a crime, then a magistrate should not go out into the public arena and insist he's still guilty. That's completely inappropriate.'

From the Outside Looking In

People outside the duckpond may be shocked to learn how 'evidence' is evaluated in court cases Sweden. This becomes painfully apparent when witnessing how Göran Lambertz carries on time and again in the television studio.

Sweden namely has 'fri bevisprövning' which means that dubious forms of evidence, such as pure hearsay, things that would not be admitted in court in many countries, are allowed without question in Sweden.

To hear Göran Lambertz declare before a television audience that the retraction of Quick's testimony means that all other 'evidence' in the Quick cases must be reevaluated, to simultaneously remember there was no 'evidence' to begin with, is to instantaneously understand how judicial scandals like Butt, da Costa, Quick, and Assange could happen in the first place.