Reveals: Suspect's lawyer pressured young boy in interrogation: "As if he were an adult"

The fact that the courts arrive at different things is not in itself unusual, but what stands out is something else: The interrogations that were held with the 13-year-old boy and which form the basis for the verdict.

The first interrogation was held in June 2021 at Barnahus in Sundsvall.

In the more than 75-minute interrogation, which SVT has taken part in, the boy described the course of events that night and how the rape must have taken place.

The second hearing was held just over three months later, in September.

Then the suspect's defender was also in the room, on the speakerphone.

- This is the first time I have seen it happen in that way, says Court of Appeal Councilor Mats Fällström.

The interrogation was interrupted

The interrogation clearly shows how the suspect's lawyer broke in and asked questions and follow-up questions directly to the boy.

Finally, the plaintiff's assistant, who was listening to the interrogation from a room next door, interrupted the interrogation.

- I myself was surprised by the fact that the defender, after the investigator asked his questions, had the opportunity to ask the questions directly to the client.

Since I judged that this was not in accordance with current methods for how a child interrogation usually takes place, I interrupted the interrogation with that particular objection, says the plaintiff's assistant Madeleine Tell.

SVT has sought the suspect's lawyer but failed to reach him.

Complicated issues

That the interrogation did not take place according to the templates that exist around child interrogation is also clear from the district court's statement.

There you write, among other things:

"The defense has had the opportunity to ask most questions to XX as if XX had been an adult.

XX has thus been exposed to, according to the district court, unusually complicated issues for a child to handle from a child perspective. "

The district court has nevertheless made the assessment that the boy has been credible enough and convicted the man of the rape.

The Court of Appeal did not make the same assessment.

The Court of Appeal also has views that the defense was allowed to ask questions directly to the boy, but can not ignore the fact that he has partly changed certain information between the two interrogations.

- The oral evidence was the weight of this case and, just as we write, there are significant differences in what he says even before the defense counsel had the opportunity to ask his questions, says Court of Appeal counsel Mats Fällström.

The prosecutor, Christina Edlund Nilsson, is ultimately responsible for the preliminary investigation - and thus also the child interrogation.

She does not want to comment on the case.