The video depicts a confrontation between a young man from Örnsköldsvik and three men from Skellefteå in March this year. All had been partying at a local nightclub that night.
The footage was submitted to the district court as evidence during the trial. It was analyzed by the prosecutor, the victims' legal representatives, and the defense attorney for the Örnsköldsvik resident.
Tension filled the courtroom as the seven-second clip was played repeatedly, including in slow motion. The sequence was as brutal as it was swift.
The video showed a clear case of self-defense, argued the defense.
However, the legal representatives of the three Skellefteå men believed that the video, and especially the guys' injuries, showed excessive violence from the Örnsköldsvik resident.
Prosecutor Jonas Fjellström took a middle stance: it is clear that the man from Örnsköldsvik was alone against three men who wanted to fight and therefore acted in self-defense – but he went too far when he attacked them with a knife to the face and neck.
The district court sentenced the Örnsköldsvik resident to two years in prison for aggravated assault, a verdict now being reviewed by the Court of Appeal for Upper Norrland.
On April 26, Norran revealed that Jonas Fjellström and the Skellefteå police had obtained the seven-second mobile phone video (in Swedish).
Rumors had circulated a while after the violent crime on March 5t that the entire incident, or parts of it, had been filmed. It was only after those who might have known about the footage were explicitly told about the importance of coming forward with any potential evidence that the film surfaced.
– We had heard rumors of a film early on, but no one would confirm it. Later, we discovered there was indeed a film. The footage is supporting evidence, confirming what we had already pieced together, said Jonas Fjellström in the Norran interview.
The Court of Appeal announced on Tuesday at 4pm that the 19-year-old will remain in custody pending the verdict.
Prosecutor Fjellström stated:
–The decision to keep him in custody strongly indicates that a custodial sentence will be imposed. While the exact length of the prison term remains to be determined, the severity of the crime necessitates a prison sentence. This is not a case where alternative punishments such as a suspended sentence, community service, or care interventions would be appropriate.