Criticism of Göta Court of Appeal for among other things deficient documentation when persons unaffiliated to the court were admitted to a main hearing behind closed doors. Also a statement on the application of the second sentence of Section 3 of Chapter 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

The decision in brief: Under certain circumstances, a court hearing may be held behind closed doors. Pursuant to Section 3 of Chapter 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (SFS 1942:740), the presiding judge may also admit persons who are not serving in or officers of the court if there are special reasons for doing so.

In the case in question, which dealt with offences including rape, an adult defendant’s mother and sister were admitted to a hearing behind closed doors in the court of appeal. The case documents do not state why their presence was permitted. The injured party, who was not in attendance at the court of appeal, found it humiliating that the defendant’s family were able to watch videos of her examination in the district court.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there is seldom reason to maintain secrecy with regard to persons whose presence has been consented to by the person that secrecy is intended to protect. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, when she or he has not consented to the presence of others, their presence must be presumed to be of benefit to the proceedings if special reasons are to be deemed to exist. Furthermore, there may be reason to balance the interests of secrecy and admitting others to the hearing.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that, in the case in question, it is debatable whether such reasons existed to warrant the presence of others. That said, as this is ultimately a matter of judgement, the court of appeal’s action in this regard is not cause for criticism. However, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is of the opinion that the court of appeal deserves criticism for deficient documentation of grounds for the decision.