Top Swedish court sends controversial 'snippa' case back to appeals court for retrial
A decision by the appeals court to throw out a guilty verdict in a child rape case over the meaning of 'snippa', a child's word for the female genitalia, has been overturned by the Supreme Court as a miscarriage of justice. The case will now be retried.
When Sweden's appeals court threw out a guilty verdict in a child rape case over the meaning of snippa, a child's word for a vagina, it caused a scandal in Sweden.
The Supreme Court, the top court in the country, ruled on Friday morning that the appeals court had committed a miscarriage of justice in not considering a lower-grade charge such as sexual abuse or molestation, which it is possible the incident could have been classified as, and sent the case back to the appeals court for retrial.
"The Supreme Court states that it must have been clear to the appeals court that there was at least one other charge which could have been applicable, and the court of appeal was obliged to take the processing measures required to examine the described offence against that charge," the Supreme Court wrote in a press statement.
Back in February, the appeals court overturned the district court's charge that the man, in his 50s, had raped the ten-year-old girl.
Despite agreeing with the district court that the man had touched the girl between her legs and inserted his finger into her snippa, the appeals court found that it could not be determined whether the girl was referring to her vulva or to her vagina.
If the man had inserted his finger into her vagina, that would have met the standard to be classified as rape. But because the girl said that his finger was “far in”, but could not state exactly how far, the appeals court found that it could not establish beyond doubt that the man had inserted his finger in her vagina and not her vulva. It therefore threw out the verdict and cleared the man of the charge.
The attorney general at the time, Petra Lundh, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the man could have been sentenced to a lower-grade charge instead, despite the fact that the prosecutor had not brought up the charge in court. Lundh asked the Supreme Court in February to throw out the decision made by the appeal's court and send it back to trial, which will now happen.
Comments (1)
See Also
When Sweden's appeals court threw out a guilty verdict in a child rape case over the meaning of snippa, a child's word for a vagina, it caused a scandal in Sweden.
The Supreme Court, the top court in the country, ruled on Friday morning that the appeals court had committed a miscarriage of justice in not considering a lower-grade charge such as sexual abuse or molestation, which it is possible the incident could have been classified as, and sent the case back to the appeals court for retrial.
"The Supreme Court states that it must have been clear to the appeals court that there was at least one other charge which could have been applicable, and the court of appeal was obliged to take the processing measures required to examine the described offence against that charge," the Supreme Court wrote in a press statement.
Back in February, the appeals court overturned the district court's charge that the man, in his 50s, had raped the ten-year-old girl.
Despite agreeing with the district court that the man had touched the girl between her legs and inserted his finger into her snippa, the appeals court found that it could not be determined whether the girl was referring to her vulva or to her vagina.
If the man had inserted his finger into her vagina, that would have met the standard to be classified as rape. But because the girl said that his finger was “far in”, but could not state exactly how far, the appeals court found that it could not establish beyond doubt that the man had inserted his finger in her vagina and not her vulva. It therefore threw out the verdict and cleared the man of the charge.
The attorney general at the time, Petra Lundh, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the man could have been sentenced to a lower-grade charge instead, despite the fact that the prosecutor had not brought up the charge in court. Lundh asked the Supreme Court in February to throw out the decision made by the appeal's court and send it back to trial, which will now happen.
Join the conversation in our comments section below. Share your own views and experience and if you have a question or suggestion for our journalists then email us at [email protected].
Please keep comments civil, constructive and on topic – and make sure to read our terms of use before getting involved.
Please log in here to leave a comment.