Skip to content

Marianne Ny’s Famous Last Words

  • The Västerås prosecutor’s office is the office of assistant Ingrid Isgren, and not of Marianne Ny.
  • The blackout of the suspect’s name in the original document is here replaced by ‘XXXXXXXXXXXX’.
  • The identity of case worker 504A-1, repeatedly found on documents related to this case, is not known.
  • The document number should be an indication of how many documents are contained in the full dossier.

PROSECUTION AUTHORITY
Prosecutor section Middle Sweden
Prosecutor’s Office Västerås
Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny
DECISION
 
 
2017-05-19
 
Document 447
Case AM-131226-10
Case worker 504A-1

SUSPECT
CRIME Rape 2010-08-17 – 2010-08-17
ID: 020110517185, Ext case #: 0201-K246314-10
DECISION The preliminary investigation is closed
Reasoning There is no longer a reason to complete the preliminary investigation
Chapter 23 § 4 Second Paragraph Criminal Code

Motivation

The suspect has left the country and it cannot, with consideration for the situation, be expected to be possible that the decision to surrender him to Sweden can be executed for the foreseeable future.

XXXXXXXXXXXX has at an unknown time left the country and, after a European Arrest Warrant was issued, was arrested in London by the English police. The City of Westminster Magistrates Court decided on 16 December 2010 to release XXXXXXXXXXXX on bail. The matter of his surrender to Sweden, in accordance with the European Arrest Warrant that had been issued, has been reviewed in three instances in England. Finally on 14 June 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to surrender XXXXXXXXXXXX to Sweden. On 19 June 2012, XXXXXXXXXXXX fled to the embassy of the Republic of Ecuador, in violation of the conditions for his bail. He has been there ever since, protected by the Republic of Ecuador. By this means, XXXXXXXXXXXX has avoided every attempt to execute the decision to surrender him to Sweden.

The decision to arrest XXXXXXXXXXXX in absentia has been repeatedly reviewed by the courts. The matter of the application of proportionality for in absentia arrests has been reviewed by the supreme court (NJA 2015 p 261). The supreme court viewed that, considering that the public interest in continuing the case weighed heavily, and due to the risk that XXXXXXXXXXXX would evade due process if the warrant was quashed, that continued arrest was proportional, despite the long time that had elapsed. The matter of continued detention was reviewed most recently by the Svea Court of Appeals on 16 September 2016. Through Mutual Legal Assistance provided by the Republic of Ecuador, an Ecuador prosecutor carried out an interview with XXXXXXXXXXXX 14-16 November 2016 in London, the account of which arrived in Sweden on 4 January 2017, with the translation arriving on 15 March. The measures taken in London have led to further measures being taken. Now there are no further possible measures that can advance the investigation.

Considering that all opportunities to further the investigation have now been exhausted, it appears – in the context of the points submitted by the supreme court for assessing the proportionality of in absentia detention – no longer proportional to uphold the decision for the in absentia detention of XXXXXXXXXXXX or to uphold the European Arrest Warrant.

Therefore there is no longer any reason, with consideration for the above and for the fact that due process requires the personal attendance of XXXXXXXXXXXX in a court of law, to continue the preliminary investigation.

Marianne Ny