Widespread anger has erupted in Sweden, triggering a backlash against its justice system, after an appeals court chose not to deport a convicted rapist, determining his assault on a 16-year-old girl did not meet the standard of being “exceptionally grave.”
The Court of Appeal for northern Norrland verified that Yezied Mohamed, an Eritrean national and undocumented immigrant, received a three-year prison sentence for the rape of a 16-year-old girl from Skellefteå on September 1, 2024. The court recognized the seriousness of the offense but concluded it did not reach the necessary level for deportation due to its specific nature and limited timeframe.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson quickly denounced the decision, issuing a statement pledging more stringent deportation legislation. Kristersson declared, “No one should have to fear encountering their assailant or rapist on the street. Individuals who commit serious offenses in Sweden and are not Swedish citizens .”
Responding in writing, Judge Lars Viktorsson indicated that the court weighed both the character and length of the act, pointing out the absence of a weapon, that intercourse did not occur, and that “the incident’s duration had been brief.” Viktorsson affirmed, “While the duration of the rape was indeed relevant in evaluating the deportation issue, the nature of the offense was equally, if not more, significant.”
Kristersson vowed to enact “the most rigorous legislation across all Nordic countries,” asserting that any crime carrying a penalty greater than a fine could result in deportation. He added, “These new, more stringent regulations are projected to lead to six times more deportations. We are pursuing measures unprecedented by any prior government.”
Migration Minister Johan Forssell reinforced the prime minister’s stance in an X video, labeling the incident as unacceptable. He declared, “The right of victims to feel safe must consistently take precedence over an offender’s right to remain in Sweden. I will introduce new legislation next year that will position Sweden as the most uncompromising nation in the Nordic region regarding deportations linked to criminal activity.”
He further stated, “It is also imperative that we re-examine the international conventions that have, until now, impeded crucial deportations. . . . This initiative aims to deliver justice and provide victims with the dignity and resolution they merit.”
Initially, the District Court acquitted him, acknowledging that a rape took place but determining there was inadequate proof identifying him as the assailant. Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, finding that Mohamed corresponded to descriptions provided by the victim and a witness, and that forensic findings located him close to the area.
The court handed down a three-year prison sentence, which is the shortest term for rape in Sweden, and mandated him to pay 240,000 Swedish krona (approximately $25,600) in compensation. The ruling stated that despite the offense’s severity, it did not possess “an exceptionally grave nature” sufficient to warrant deportation under refugee safeguards. A dissenting judge advocated for his expulsion.
The ruling garnered international attention after assertions on social media suggested Mohamed was not deported because the rape “lasted less than ten minutes.” Although the judgment contains no explicit timeframe, the court verified that the duration was among the elements considered in its evaluation.
Christian Peterson, a Swedish journalist, informed Digital that the court’s phrasing – specifically referencing the “character and duration” of the offense – “became a focal point for public indignation.”
Peterson explained, “The judges individually decided which elements of the crime were pertinent and if they were grave enough to warrant deportation. This is precisely what renders the ruling so contentious.”
A widely circulated post by Swedish commentator Evelina Hahne, which amassed nearly 10 million views and was shared by Elon Musk, criticized Swedish courts for being too lenient towards migrants, rekindling a national discussion on crime and immigration.
Peterson stated that the case underscores a larger problem: the challenges Sweden faces in deporting migrants, even subsequent to serious convictions.
He commented, “In Sweden, it is extremely challenging to deport migrants, even individuals found guilty of severe offenses. This particular case has become symbolic, as many perceive it as illustrating how the system prioritizes protecting perpetrators over victims.”
He cited comparable incidents, such as the 2016 murder of Elin Krantz by an Ethiopian man holding a residence permit, and recent accounts of rapes in senior care facilities involving foreign-born staff.
Peterson observed, “Substantial reforms only started to materialize after the right-wing coalition assumed power in 2022. Prior to that, the matter was regarded as excessively politically sensitive.”
Nonetheless, he mentioned, “Sweden did not participate in a Danish-Italian proposal aimed at reforming the European Convention on Human Rights, which critics argue restricts the capacity to deport convicted criminals. Denmark, Italy, and Austria endorsed this initiative, while Sweden did not.”
With escalating public indignation, the Swedish government is under increasing pressure to enact more rigorous policies.
Judge Viktorsson stated that the court adhered to current law and established precedent, “but the authority to alter deportation criteria rests with legislators.”