the Woman, who was charged with " the protection of the criminal, has previously cleared in both the district court and the court of appeal. Now do the Supreme court (HD) on the same assessment.
the Court writes on its website that the criminal responsibility for the protection of the criminal are not covered by for example a false alibi to a person already convicted for the crime.
a criminal can as HD becomes relevant if a witness, for example, provide data that makes that a criminal will escape. In the present case, the court, however, that the false alibit could only affect single intervention. And because the woman has not testified under oath was what she did is not criminal, according to HD.
the Case is about the shooting at a restaurant at Vårväderstorget in Gothenburg in 2015, where two people were killed and eight were injured. A woman was charged in ex-post grossly protective of the criminal, then she is in for interrogations by the police, lied about where one of the perpetrators was in connection with the murders.
interrogated in connection with one of the livstidsdömda the men appealed hovrättsdomen and she gave him a false alibi. Both the district court and the court of appeal later concluded that the woman lied — but wooed her anyway, since, according to the courts is no legal support for judging her.
It was the attorney-general (RAW) that had turned to the Supreme court to get the case tried again. RAW considered, unlike the courts that the text of the law is enough to condemn the woman.
in Total seven men convicted of involvement in the shooting. Two of them were sentenced to life imprisonment, of which one of them is the man who the woman is considered to have tried to protect.