Supreme Court with unique verdict on prohibition of entry: "Decision before the end of the year"

After a home game where Djurgården met Hammarby in the Swedish Cup last spring, the man was given a one-year ban on being said to have been in a fight outside the arena. The man appealed the decision, but both district court and court of law rejected the claim. When the man was banned, he was not yet charged with assault. That case is currently being decided in court.

Now it has landed at the Supreme Court which never settled a similar case.

- No nothing. The law has been around for 14 years but we have never tried the issue, says Kerstin Calissendorff.

What makes you bring up this particular case?

- This person has not previously been convicted of any crime. As a reason for issuing a ban for a certain period in the future, there must be a risk of crime (violence at sporting events, please report). The question is what to base it on. How should one assess the issue of risk when it is not clear that there are any earlier signs of such, says Kerstin Calissendorff.

The man's lawyer Viktor Banke opposes the fact that the prosecutor in the case is also the one who issued the ban.

- We say this is happening very, very arbitrarily. After all, it is a very far-reaching measure to prevent someone from being in certain places. We believe in this case, but perhaps above all in general that it is not proportionate to just announce a one-year ban as it is in this case, based on a previous suspicion, which has not been dealt with in court, he tells SVT Sport and continues. :

- Our client has been playing football for an incredible number of years without being suspected of a crime. In any case, I say that the legislation is used to punish innocent people disproportionately, but also in a way that was not intended by the legislation.

According to Kestin Calissendorff, it does not matter that the man is charged with a crime, because you can test the basic principle of the matter anyway. As HD has taken up, a precedent is expected for how to look at the entry ban in the future.

- If we had not believed that, we would not have given a trial permit. Our resources that we manage are for the goals where we can provide legal guidance. This is a question of risk assessment and the duration of the prohibition period.

Do you have any idea how long it will take before the goal is decided?

- Normally I would not have it, but in this case I think it may come to a decision before the turn of the year. This goal is fairly straightforward.