Peter Larsson, from the Maskaure Sami village, acquitted of serious hunting crime charges. Despite this, he may still lose his firearms license.
– I feel incredibly disappointed, he says.
The Court of Appeal for Upper Norrland states in the ruling that Peter Larsson did not use a snowmobile in an unlawful manner during a protective hunt, and that the two bears were also not subjected to unnecessary suffering. Thus, he is fully acquitted of the serious hunting crime he was previously charged with, reports Jakt & Jägare.
At the same time, the court notes deficiencies in communication with the County Administrative Board, as well as the fact that Larsson provided incorrect coordinates for the location where the bear was shot. This is considered a standard-degree hunting offense – but since it is statute-barred, he cannot be convicted for it.
Nevertheless, the consequences could be significant. Since the statute of limitations rules differ for legal entities, the Maskaure Sami village is ordered to pay a corporate fine of SEK 30,000 (€2,700).
– The corporate fine feels so wrong, but at the same time it’s a relief that the legal process is over, comments Larsson.
– It is terrible to be an honest person and be accused of a crime.
The firearms issue may be revisited
The question now is how the Police Authority views Larsson’s firearm ownership, given that the Court of Appeal, despite the acquittal, states that a (statute-barred) hunting offense did occur.
– It’s definitely not to the person’s advantage. If I were the decision-maker, I would take a closer look at this case, says Nils-Olov Gärdin, head of one of the police firearms units.
However, he emphasizes that more circumstances must be considered – including how much time has passed, which could work in Larsson’s favor.
After the district court’s acquittal in December 2023, Peter Larsson requested the return of his confiscated hunting weapons. The police initially said no, citing the prosecutor’s appeal. However, the Court of Administrative Appeals sided with Larsson, and the weapons were returned.
Criticizes the Court of Appeal’s assessment
Attorney Sven Severin, who represented Peter Larsson throughout the legal process, is also critical of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning:
– The court has not taken into account the reality of conducting protective hunts in roadless areas, he says.
He argues that the shortcomings pointed out by the court – such as the incorrect specification of the shooting location – should be considered trivial.
Severin is particularly critical of the fact that the court asserts a crime was committed, without this being stated in the verdict. This makes it impossible to appeal the wording.
– It’s reminiscent of the da Costa case, where two doctors were acquitted of murder but the court still concluded they had dismembered the body – a crime that was statute-barred at the time.
Sven Severin believes that the legal process, which has lasted six years, should now come to an end – including the issue of firearms.
– That the police would act again after all these years, I find inconceivable.
