The Stockholm District Court ordered the Prosecutor on 9 November 2022 to specify the description of crimes in the indictment that was issued on 11 November 2021. The decision rewards the complaint by Ian Lundin and Lundin/Orrön Energy that the current description does not allow for an adequate preparation of their defence. The ruling puts an extra burden on Prosecutor Henrik Attorps but should not substantially impact the Lundin case. In theory, the District Court can throw out the entire case if the Prosecutor will not specify the crimes to its liking before December 1st, but this is not very likely. In its decision, the Court writes that the intention is to simplify the preparations of the trial. Also, it would be rather odd if a major case like this was thrown out a year after it was brought to court.
It is remarkable that the District Court did not tell the defence to raise their concerns in Court instead of ordering the Prosecution to clarify key elements of last year’s indictment. Prosecutors must always clarify all aspects of indictments in court, that can then be challenged by the defence. That is what court hearings are for. Besides, the present indictment already specifies the crimes in time and space and describes the suspects’ role in great detail. In a normal case, when suspects have no unlimited funds and no flotilla of first-class lawyers to write a 225 pages plea full with clever legal argumentations, an appeal like this would perhaps have been dismissed more easily.
In his correspondence with the Court prior to the decision, the Prosecutor noted the timing of the claim, one year after the indictment and shortly before the trial’s first planning meeting. This timing and the peculiar legal merit of the claim suggests that the defence may have filed their claim to complicate and delay legal proceedings.
The English translation of the ruling will be made available on www.unpaiddebt.org/the-trial.