DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT
The security guard Peter Hallen has recounted, among other things, that he saw Patrik Sjoquist holding Joakim Berggren by the neck when he entered the bathroom. He also saw how Mrado Slovovic “wrestled” one of the other security guards, Daniel Lappalainen, to the floor and put his leg in a lock. The restaurant guest Christer Thraff has recounted how he heard Patrik Sjoquist yell to Joakim Berggren that he would “teach him a lesson,” as well as that he saw how Patrik Sjoquist head-butted Joakim Berggren. The witnesses’ testimonies appear to be reliable. The District Court further believes that Joakim Berggren’s testimony is reliable. For example, he has described details regarding what Patrik Sjoquist yelled. His testimony is supported by the medical reports and by the testimonies of witnesses Peter Hallen and Christer Thraff.
Patrik Sjoquist sustained no reported injuries and also did not consult a doctor after the incident in question. The witness Christer Thraff has recounted that it was Patrik Sjoquist who, unprovoked, head-butted Joakim Berggren. This leads the District Court to believe that Patrik Sjoquist’s testimony is unreliable.
In summation, the District Court finds Patrik Sjoquist guilty of assaulting Joakim Berggren, consistent with the prosecution’s allegations. Patrik Sjoquist did not act in self-defense. The assault was of an unusually ruthless nature and shall be judged as aggravated assault, since it included repeated blows to the head, with severe injuries as a result. The charges are supported and will therefore be accepted. The crime shall be labeled aggravated assault.
Patrik Sjoquist has seven previous convictions on his criminal record. Most recently, he was convicted for assault by Nacka District Court and sentenced to four months in prison. His record also includes a previous conviction for assault as well as unlawful threats, hate crime, illegal possession of arms, illegal doping, and various traffic infractions. Based on medical records by court-appointed doctors, it is clear that Patrik Sjoquist lives in an orderly way. He is employed as a construction worker and spends a great deal of his free time on so-called body-building. He has a yearly income of around 200,000 kronor. There is no present need for surveillance. Patrik Sjoquist has agreed to community service.
Considering the severity of the crime and the aggravating factors discussed supra, no alternative sentence to imprisonment is available. The sentence shall therefore be set at three years in prison.
COUNT 2 (MRADO SLOVOVIC; ASSAULT)
Evidence
The prosecutor has, as verbal evidence, referred to the statements/questioning of the plaintiff, security guard Daniel Lappalainen, as well as to the questioning of the witness, security guard Peter Hallen.
Daniel Lappalainen has, among other things, recounted the following. He does not know if he was wearing his security guard’s badge at the time of the incident. He understood that there was something “going on” in the men’s bathroom. When he entered it, he saw Joakim Berggren lying on the floor. There was blood on the wall and on Joakim Berggren’s face. There were a number of people in the bathroom. He yelled at everyone to stay in the bathroom. One man ran past him out the door. Another man, Mrado Slovovic, grabbed hold of his leg, so that he lost his balance. Mrado Slovovic then put his foot in a lock. It hurt a great deal. He thought that Mrado Slovovic would break off his foot. Then Mrado Slovovic told him that “Kvarnen would be visited again” and that “Joakim Berggren had messed with the wrong guys.” After that, Mrado Slovovic and Patrick Sjoquist left the venue.
The security guard Peter Hallen’s version of events is the same as under Count 1.
In response to the charges, the defendant, Mrado Slovovic, has made the following statement. The security guard Joakim Berggren had been very unpleasant to his friend Patrik Sjoquist earlier during the night. When Mrado Slovovic came into the men’s bathroom, he saw that the situation was generally tumultuous and that a fight was going on between Joakim Berggren and Patrik Sjoquist. He was on his way to break up the scuffle when two men entered the bathroom. Mrado Slovovic did not realize that they were security guards. One of the men, Daniel Lappalainen, must have thought that Mrado Slovovic was involved in the fight, because he tried to “wrestle” him to the floor. At that point, Mrado Slovovic became very frightened. Mrado Slovovic succeeded in freeing himself from Daniel Lappalainen’s grasp. He may have grabbed Daniel Lappalainen’s foot in order to tear himself away, but it was not hard. Daniel Lappalainen was not wearing a security guard’s badge and Mrado did not realize that he was a security guard.
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT
Daniel Lappalainen and Mrado Slovovic’s versions of events differ when it comes to who attacked whom and whether or not Mrado Slovovic injured Daniel Lappalainen’s foot in self-defense. Both have given believable accounts. Daniel Lappalainen’s version is supported by the security guard Peter Hallen’s testimony regarding the fact that it was Mrado Slovovic who “wrestled” Daniel Lappalainen to the ground. Mrado Slovovic’s version is supported by Patrik Sjoquist’s account that it was the security guard who began to fight with Mrado Slovovic.
According to Swedish law, the defendant’s claims shall form the basis of the Court’s judgment unless they are refuted by the prosecutor. In instant case, this is a situation of one man’s word against another’s, and both versions have certain support in the observations of others. It should also be noted that there is no medical record that supports the claim that Daniel Lappalainen’s leg was injured. However, it shall be regarded as irrefutable that the general conditions in the bathroom at Kvarnen were tumultuous. A scuffle had arisen in this situation, and it is possible that it was unclear who attacked whom. It will be considered confirmed that Mrado Slovovic entered the bathroom at a later point than Patrik Sjoquist and therefore may have interpreted the situation differently. Even if Mrado Slovovic did, in fact, injure Daniel Lappalainen’s leg in the alleged way, this may have been defensible if Mrado Slovovic did indeed perceive that he was attacked and therefore acted in so-called putative self-defense; in other words, he believed he was in danger of becoming the victim of a criminal act. It is also not clear whether or not Daniel Lappalainen was wearing his security guard’s badge. Mrado Slovovic’s claim that he did not realize that Daniel Lappalainen was a security guard should therefore be given due consideration. In conclusion, the District Court finds that the prosecution was unable to prove the alleged act. The charges will therefore be dropped.
TO APPEAL, see attached information (DV 400). An appeal should be made to Svea Court of Appeals and be submitted to the District Court no later than three weeks from today.
On behalf of the District Court
Tor Hjalmarsson
9
Mrado in the serene suburb-like a penguin in the jungle. Didn’t fit in. Wrong habitat. Wrong climate. Wrong size. Attracted stares. A relief that Radovan invited him over to his house relatively seldom.
He couldn’t find a parking spot. The risk of not making it on time was increasing. He drove in circles. Kept his eyes peeled. Maybe someone was on their way to their car to drive off. Improvised with streets. Like a rookie. No structure. No success.
He was busy worrying about other stuff.
No open legal spot to park his Mercedes SL 500. Finally, he parked the car too close to a pedestrian crossing. Ticket bait. Whatever. It was leased. Parking tickets would go to the leasing company.