Retrial for Pirate Bay Case? Judge Was Member of Same (C) Organisation as Prosecution

[RadioElectric]

http://www.thelocal.se/19028.html

A lawyer representing one of the men convicted in the Pirate Bay trial has called for a retrial after reports that the judge was a member of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives.

The judge in the Pirate Bay case, Tomas Norström, has been a member of several of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives, Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme reports.

Bloody hell. How do you miss this BEFORE the trial?

Norström argues that he was not however swayed in his judgement by involvement with copyright protection groups.

"My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest," Norström told Sveriges Radio.

How could they possibly NOT constitute a conflict of interest?

Edit: On reflection I guess it's possible that the PB crew knew all along about this and that's why they've been so confident about the original verdict not sticking.

[dafuzz]

Bloody hell! I was just about to post this story myself

Pirates ftw

[frankus]

Originally Posted by dafuzz

Pirates ftw

Yar!!

[Sporky_McGuffin]

Originally Posted by RadioElectric

Edit: On reflection I guess it's possible that the PB crew knew all along about this and that's why they've been so confident about the original verdict not sticking.

Interesting that they don't feel they can beat it on legal grounds, so instead are making it a personal attack on the judge's professionalism and integrity.

[RadioElectric]

Originally Posted by Sporky_McGuffin

Interesting that they don't feel they can beat it on legal grounds, so instead are making it a personal attack on the judge's professionalism and integrity.

I don't support the "I should be able to take whatever I want" philosophy that they hold but at the same time this case has always seemed dodgy.

[Sporky_McGuffin]

I've honestly not paid that much attention, but whenever personal things like this are brought up I'm inclined to think people are clutching at straws.

[RadioElectric]

Originally Posted by Sporky_McGuffin

I've honestly not paid that much attention, but whenever personal things like this are brought up I'm inclined to think people are clutching at straws.

Is this something personal? The judge has been accused of being in cahoots with the prosecution. I didn't follow the trial closely either so I'm not sure how much of an effect this could have had (hoping for some legal-eagle input Fret) but there does seem to be a fair few people calling him on it now.

[Sporky_McGuffin]

Well, yes. Effectively they're saying that the judge is incapable of doing his job correctly - being impartial and professional and making judgements based on the evidence and arguments presented, and that instead he is corrupt and in the pocket of the prosecutors.

No comment on the legal validity of the argument, just an ad hominem attack on the judge.

[dafuzz]

Originally Posted by Sporky_McGuffin

Well, yes. Effectively they're saying that the judge is incapable of doing his job correctly - being impartial and professional and making judgements based on the evidence and arguments presented, and that instead he is corrupt and in the pocket of the prosecutors.

No comment on the legal validity of the argument, just an ad hominem attack on the judge.

He sits on the board of The Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, an organization devoted to implementing stronger copyright laws. Do you really think he presided over the case with an open mind?

EDIT: Oh, I see - you didn't actually follow the case

[Sporky_McGuffin]

If his decision was not in keeping with the law, would they not challenge on that basis?

All judges have personal opinions. Are they therefore all incapable of making objective decisions?

Are we now honestly pretending that the pirate bay kids didn't break any laws?