Judge in #spectrial accused of being biased in another case


The Swedish Radio is reporting that the Judge, Tomas Norström, in The Pirate Bay case is getting accused of being biased in another case.

This is a summary for the English reading peeps.

DN is reporting that the company Wheels Spare Parts had to pay damages of SEK668,000 / USD84,000 for selling hubs caps that was similar to BMW. Same as the Pirate Bay trial, the Judge and the plaintiff’s lawyer Henrik Wistam were members in the same copyright organisations without this being disclosed at this trial. The organisations are Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt (SFU) and Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd (SFIR).

The Judge declines to comment on this.



6 Responses to “Judge in #spectrial accused of being biased in another case”

  1. Lickmydomcoff Says:

    wow, this judge must be an idiot or something, as he thinks he can get away with being biased in a court law and not get caught doing so. Witch Makes me wonder if he was also get a pocket full of cash behind the scenes, or if he is running for a political position. lol he can kiss that goodbye if he was with all this negative propaganda on him hehe.

  2. John Dunn Says:

    Amazes me why nobody is questioning these rulings in the house of lords ( or equivalent )

  3. William Chambers (Bios Element) Says:

    Why is their no investigation? Simple answer Corruption. No person with common sense can honestly say the “trial” was fair to begin with and no doubt the judge had some sort of pressure on him to deliver a guilty verdict.

  4. Sofia Says:

    The damages in this case is high & harsh as well. In the Swedish Court system, normally the damages are quite low yet this Judge seems to be handing out high amounts.

    Both for this case and The Pirate Bay case, the defendants have submitted their protest/appeal to the Higher Court and this Court will decided if the cases should be referred back to the Lower Courts.

    Some sort of improvements and clarity needs to come out of this. Something along the lines where all Judges have to declare public what organisations and consulting etc they are participating in.

  5. VRP Says:

    Where are all you ppl? When was the last time you heard of a judge in any other country declare something that might require him or her to recuse themselves?

    What can be expected on appeal? Look at some USCA decisions — immigration decisions all void of any facts (2d circuit), nor published; most other decisions also not published, containing warnings that the decision is for the one particular case only and is not to be cited or relied upon by anyone anywhere for any other purpose…

    Where’s judicial integrity? There’s likely not a judge living anywhere who even knows the meaning of the word!

    VRP

  6. Sofia Says:

    VRP – I think the Judges have to declare where they have extra interests. I believe it is to the Court admin office but I am not sure if this is available to the public or not.

    How the appeal works and when the Higher Court will give their decision – I don’t know. But it will be a public decision, and if nothing else the defense lawyers will ensure that the decision becomes known.