Sweden’s Court of Appeal has faced backlash after deciding against the deportation of a convicted rapist, arguing that his crime against a 16-year-old girl wasn’t “exceptionally serious.” This ruling has stirred outrage and scrutiny of the nation’s justice system.
The Court of Appeal for Northern Norland confirmed that Yezid Mohamed, an Eritrean and undocumented immigrant, received a three-year prison sentence for raping a teenager in Skellefteå on September 1, 2024. While acknowledging the seriousness of the crime, the court concluded it did not justify deportation due to its nature and brevity.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson quickly condemned the ruling and pledged to strengthen deportation laws. He stated, “No one should fear encountering an attacker or rapist on the street,” insisting that serious offenders who aren’t Swedish citizens must be expelled from the country.
Judge Lars Viktorsson commented on the court’s deliberations, emphasizing that although the incident was serious, the absence of a weapon or sexual intercourse and its short duration played significant roles in the decision. Victorsson noted that the duration of the crime was indeed a factor for considering deportation, but its nature deserved equal importance.
Kristersson vowed to implement the “strictest laws in any Nordic country,” suggesting that serious offenses could lead to deportations, projecting a sixfold increase in the number of deportations expected under these new regulations. Immigration Minister Johan Forssell echoed this, arguing that the victim’s safety should prevail over a perpetrator’s right to remain in Sweden, promising upcoming legislation aimed at harsher deportations related to crime.
In earlier proceedings, the district court acknowledged that rape occurred but acquitted Mohamed, citing insufficient evidence of him being the assailant. Following an appeal, the court reversed this on finding that Mohamed matched the victim’s description and forensic evidence placed him at the scene. His sentence reflected the minimum for rape in Sweden, and he was ordered to pay 240,000 Swedish kronor (around $25,600) in damages. While most judges felt the crimes didn’t meet the threshold for deportation, one dissented, advocating for expulsion.
This decision garnered global attention when Mohamed noted on social media that he had escaped deportation because the assault “lasted less than 10 minutes.” Although the ruling did not fixate on specifics of time, the court maintained that duration is a relevant consideration. Swedish journalist Christian Peterson remarked that the terminology around the “character and duration” of the act reignited public outrage, highlighting the subjective nature of the judges’ determinations.
Commentator Evelina Hahne, whose social media post criticizing the lenience towards immigrant offenders went viral, further fueled discussions on this matter. Peterson pointed out that this case exemplifies the broader issue of challenges associated with deporting immigrants even after serious convictions, indicating that it embodies public sentiment around victim protection versus criminal rights.
Pointing to historical cases, Peterson noted that community sentiment leans toward viewing the justice system as more protective of offenders than victims. He mentioned past incidents, including a murder case involving an immigrant, illustrating longstanding concerns surrounding immigration and crime.
Despite pressures for policy reforms, Sweden has refrained from joining other European nations aiming to amend regulations hindering deportations of criminals. As public discontent rises, calls for stricter laws are growing louder.
Judge Viktorsson maintained that the court applies existing laws, but underscored that it is within the legislature’s domain to modify deportation standards.
