The District Court sentenced the man, who is in his 50s, to three years in prison for two counts of rape of a child, but he was acquitted in the Court of Appeal because the court thought it was unclear what the victim, a 10-year-old girl, meant by the word "snippa".
It was not considered that it was proven that the girl had told of a penetration. And since rape was the only crime in the prosecution, the man could not be convicted of any alternative crime, according to judge Åke Thimfors, who was involved in acquitting the man.
"Judges are people too"
The verdict was met with massive criticism on social media, and even led to protests in the streets. Now the verdict will be taken up in the Supreme Court – but not because of the disagreement over the word "snippa". Instead, the Supreme Court will examine whether the Court of Appeal made a mistake in not considering an alternative offence.
This was one of the points that Prosecutor General Petra Lundh made in her appeal to HD. Dennis Martinsson, senior lecturer in jurisprudence at Stockholm University, believes that the commotion surrounding the case may have had some impact on the process.
"I think it has played a role especially for the prosecutor general's letter to the Supreme Court and how she formulated herself. Formally, when the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, looks at a case like this, media attention and public outrage should not matter. But it is clear that judges are also human beings and have perhaps somewhere also been affected by this, he says in Aktuellt.
Is about "legal finesse"
But Monday's decision indicates that HD has not been affected by outside pressure, according to Dennis Martinsson.
"What the Supreme Court has said today is about the legal finesse and not what the public has been outraged about," he said.
Javascript is disabled
Javascript must be turned on to play video
Learn more about browser support
60 seconds: SVT explains the high-profile "snippa case" and the background to #jagvetvadensnippaär. Photo: SVT