Field Notes

source

Exoneration in Sweden

Is it not about time to reform the Swedish model?

StatusStableUpdatedStands on1 sourceSupportsnotes

Dennis Martinsson’s 2021 article in Erasmus Law Review (2021:4) reviews the Swedish legal framework for exoneration applications and asks whether the Swedish model needs reform. The saved copy is the publisher’s open-access PDF. Martinsson is a Stockholm University procedural-law researcher whose dissertation project compares how Sweden, Norway, and Denmark administer applications for exoneration.

What the article establishes

The Swedish provisions on exoneration have remained practically unchanged since 1940. Two findings carry the article’s weight:

  1. Sweden publishes no official statistics on exoneration applications. Norway’s independent commission publishes annual statistics (in 2019: 153 applications, 11 reopenings, a 9 percent approval rate; 15 percent across its existence). The only Swedish figures come from research file reviews: the JK project found 40-60 approved applications per decade for 1950-1988, and a one-year study of 2015 found 383 decided applications, 216 analysed, of which 209 were rejected and 7 approved — a 3 percent approval rate.
  2. Three granted applications share a shape. Reviewing successful murder-case applications (including Samir Sabri), Martinsson notes the applicants were originally convicted of murder, the cases were high-profile, and two of three had previously been refused.

The article’s reform proposals: Sweden should begin publishing official annual statistics on applications and outcomes, and should consider replacing court-internal review with a review committee on the Norwegian model.

Limitations

The article is a framework review and reform argument, not an empirical study; its approval-rate figures are borrowed from the JK project and the 2015 one-year study (Hellqvist’s), each with the selection limits those works state. The 2015 figure covers one year and may not be representative.

Significance for the wiki

This is the clearest single statement, from within Swedish legal academia, of the transparency deficit: the Swedish correction channel cannot even be counted from public data, which makes Sweden’s low visible exoneration rate uninterpretable without the comparative frame developed in Hidden miscarriage risk and correction-channel opacity across democracies. It corroborates Lidén (2021)’s independently assembled grant-rate table.

Built on 1 source (1 external).

Working out connections…