The Swedish Supreme Court has recently come up with a verdict that’ll work as guidance in sexual abuse cases. The verdict is based on a case where a male teacher have said “oh how big your breasts became now” to his 15-year-old female student during class.
Right before the incident, the student tried on a weightlifting belt by fastening it to the outside of her top. That’s when the teacher commented on the 15-year-old girl’s body. The girl has stated that the comment made her uncomfortable and that she became insecure about how to act around the teacher afterwards. Several students were also present at the time, and in retrospect they say they were shocked by the comment.
The teacher was convicted of sexual abuse in both district court and the court of appeal in Sweden. The conviction was then appealed to the Supreme Court where it was concluded that the comment couldn’t be considered sexual abuse according to law. And so the Supreme Court acquitted the teacher of the charge.
What is sexual abuse?
Sexual abuse as a crime in Sweden is regulated in Chapter 6 § 10 § 2 of the Criminal Code. There, it’s stated that there are two different forms of sexual abuse. On the one hand you can get charged of sexual abuse if you expose yourself to someone in a way that’s meant to cause discomfort. On the other hand you can get charged of sexual abuse if a you, either through words or actions, abuse or molest someone in a way that’s meant to violate the victim’s sexual integrity. The latter form of sexual abuse was what was relevant in the case of the teacher and the 15-year-old girl. The big question was whether the teacher’s comment was meant to violate the girl’s sexual integrity.
Do you need legal help?
Intention and experience doesn’t matter in sexual abuse cases
When it comes to sexual abuse in Sweden, the verdict has to be made on objective grounds. So it doesn’t matter what the teacher’s intention was or how the girl experienced the incident. What matters is whether the comment was meant to violate the girl’s sexual integrity. That is, if there was an intention to offend the girl. And that the act has a clear sexual orientation or character.
The verdict from the Supreme Court stated that there were a couple of things important to bear in mind, like:
- who had carried out the act.
- who the act was aimed at.
- in what context it took place.
- and whether the act otherwise had a sexual purpose.
In this case, the Supreme Court believes that the comment was improper and inappropriate. But that that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was a sexual meaning to it. That’s why they believe there weren’t enough grounds to convict the teacher of sexual abuse.
Why did the Swedish Supreme Court judge differently?
Both the district court and the court of appeal convicted the teacher of sexual abuse. Both verdicts stated that the comment had a clear sexual orientation and character and that it was meant to violate the girl’s sexual integrity. It was also taken into account that the incident took place in school between a teacher and a student. And that there was a clear imbalance of power between them.
The Supreme Court states that a comment about someone’s breasts often can have the sort of sexual orientation or character required to be able to convict someone of sexual abuse. And they agree that the comment was improper and inappropriate. However, they also believe the comment didn’t have a sufficiently clear sexual orientation or character to be able to convict the teacher of sexual abuse.
In this particular case, the Supreme Courts conclusion was that the comment appeared to be a spontaneous reaction to what happened, and that it didn’t have a sexual meaning. That a mere comment about someone’s breasts isn’t enough for a conviction. According to the Supreme Court, it’s instead other circumstances that determine whether such a comment can be regarded as sexual absue or not. And that’s why they acquitted the teacher.
Do men and women judge differently in Swedish courts?
What’s interesting in this case is that women were judging in both the district court and the court of appeal. In the Supreme Court however, the case was judged by a majority of men (four men and one woman). Since the district court and the court of appeal held the man guilty of sexual abuse, while the Supreme Court disagreed, it’s worth asking; do men and women to some extent judge differently in Swedish courts?
This is an interesting question, especially when it comes to sexual crimes where the perpetrator often is a man and the victim often a woman. And especially since the viral snippa-verdict also was judged mainly by men. The one woman who participated in the sentencing made it clear that she didn’t agree with the verdict. And that she thought it was clear what the victim meant when she talked about her genitalia.
