In the district court, the police officers, a man in his 50s and a man in his 30s, were sentenced to prison for two years and one year and six months, respectively, for gross misconduct and breach of confidentiality. The case has been surrounded by strong secrecy, but it is about, among other things, that the police officers did not report seized narcotics.
The suspicions arose when seized narcotics were found in a cash box that one of the police officers had at his disposal.
According to the district court, the police officers' incorrect handling of the narcotics should have taken place in the course of their duties, and they were therefore convicted of gross misconduct instead of gross narcotics offenses.
Four years in prison
The Svea Court of Appeal makes a different assessment - and imposes a prison sentence of four years and three years and six months, respectively.
"The Court of Appeal notes that the measures taken by the police officers - including repackaging the narcotics to erase fingerprints, fabricating investigation material, and storing a large quantity of narcotics in a residence for a long time - are of such a nature that it cannot reasonably be considered to have taken place within the framework of the police's crime-investigating activities," the court writes in a press release.
The measures instead appear to have been intended to "conceal the existence of the narcotics from other police officers". The handling has not been anchored with superiors or constituted an established working method.
"The defendants must have realized that they did not have the right to handle the narcotics in the way that happened," says Court of Appeal Judge Ragnar Palmkvist in a comment.
The older of the police officers is also convicted of gross misconduct, ordinary misconduct, and breach of confidentiality, and the other for ordinary misconduct.
Acted in distress
The police officers have claimed that their actions were only intended to combat crime, and the younger of them has argued that he acted in distress when the actions were "directly linked to the serious state of society with a wave of violence of unprecedented magnitude". The objection is dismissed by both the district court and the court of appeal.
"The Court of Appeal fully agrees with the district court's assessment that there was no emergency situation," the judgment states.
In the assessment of the sentence, it is taken into account that the men will lose their jobs.
