Hearsay's OK

More signs that Swedes have, at best, a haphazard justice system.

Get It Try It

Västmanland is a Swedish inland province roughly on a latitude with the capital city Stockholm and part of the so-called 'whining belt'. Västerås is the largest city in the province, with a population of 130,000. Västerås is also home to the district court.

TR B 926-14

The Swedish jurist site 'Dagens Juridik' ('Today's Justice') recently published a report on a case there, a case that's so far gone through the appeals court. The case number is 'TR B 926-14'.

Orderly sentenced to prison - raped patient in psychiatric emergency ward
Published 2014-07-24 09:01

An orderly who worked in a psychiatric emergency ward was sentenced by a district court for raping a patient. The orderly appealed the verdict, but the appeals court upheld the verdict.

An inebriated woman was admitted to a psychiatric emergency ward one evening in February, after being diagnosed as suicide-prone. During the evening the woman had the company of a male orderly to go out to smoke. The orderly was alleged to have then forced the woman to perform oral sex on him.

But right after the incident, the woman was diagnosed as 'no risk' and released from the hospital. The woman was taken home in a taxi. Whilst in the taxi, the woman coughed up saliva which she smeared onto her jacket to establish evidence.

The jacket was analysed and the saliva was shown to contain sperm, but tests were not able to find DNA.

The orderly, 52 years old, was indicted for rape and has consistently pleaded his innocence.

The district court ruled that the testimony of the woman was consistent and detailed. Her testimony, according to the court, was supported by the lab tests on her jacket and by the testimony of two people who spoke with the woman shortly after the incident.

And the taxi driver also supported the woman's testimony.

The lab results could not bind the orderly to the crime because DNA was not available, but the court ruled that the testimony of the woman was sufficient. The orderly was found guilty of rape.

The court stated that the crime was carried out by a person whose duty was to support a woman in a vulnerable situation. The woman had been in an emergency situation when she arrived at the clinic; the court therefore decided on a sentence exceeding the customary two years prison.

The orderly was sentenced to two and one half years prison and to pay the woman £10,000 in damages.

The orderly appealed the district court verdict but the appeals court upheld the district court verdict.

Mickey Investigates

Reader 'Musse' (Swedish for the first name of Mickey Mouse) commented sarcastically four days later.

'If you don't believe her then you can ask those three people, cos she told them! And the orderly would of course have told at least four people if he hadn't raped her, as then there would have been much stronger evidence for his version!'

Musse went out and got a copy of the verdict ('TR B 926-14') and then returned to the comments section.

No, I find no further hidden evidence in the verdict. (Västmanlands TR B 926-14, the appeals court revealed no more about the evidence than that they agreed with the district court.)

The woman was at the psychiatric emergency reception, and this is where she met the orderly. She went outdoors to smoke three times, the first two times were found on CCTV footage. The third time, for reasons unknown, she hid with the orderly behind a plank or alternately, according to the orderly, was there alone whilst he worked in the reception.

She was released shortly thereafter and sat with the orderly outdoors where they drank coffee as they waited for her taxi. When the orderly goes back inside, she rings a friend and talks of some form of sexual contact which this friend interpreted as unwelcome. She then rings her boyfriend and tells him she was forced to suck off an orderly to be released from the clinic. The boyfriend rings the police. In the taxi on her way home to her boyfriend, she tells the driver that she was forced into oral sex. So this is what's in the article: 'if you don't believe her then you can ask someone she's talked to'.

But there still might be secret information here, some sort of 'relevant evidence'. The district court ruled that the lab not finding DNA was 'strong evidence of a sexual attack as described by the complainant'. (Yeah!)

So actually no illusory evidence is needed because the lack of evidence is deemed as further proof that things are as alleged.

Swedish courts... One must often both laugh and cry.

See Also
Learning Curve: No Requirement of Proof in Swedish Sex Trials