Together with several of the lawyers who represented the movie and music industries, the judge was a member of the Swedish Association of copyright (SFU) and the Swedish Association for Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR). These engagements automatically make him a member of two major international pro-copyright organizations, ALAI and AIPPI.

Because of these connections the lawyers of the Pirate Bay defendants called for a retrial, arguing that the judge was not as objective as he should’ve been. One of the defendants, The Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak at the time: “In the best interest of the Swedish people’s trust in the system a retrial should be not only granted, but pushed for.”

Today, the Appeal Court ruled that Tomas Norström was not biased. Although he was indeed a member of organizations that preserve the interests of copyright holders, this has not influenced his judgment, the court ruled.

The Appeal Court argues that the judge’s membership in the copyright associations show an engagement in issues “that to a certain extent is in the interest of the rights holders”. The Appeal Court added that it must be taken into account that the rights of rights holders are recognized by Swedish law. “That a judge agrees with the principles that are fundamental to this law cannot in itself be a reason for bias,” the court said.

Nevertheless, the court criticized the judge for not being open about his engagement in the associations before the trial. If he had done so, the question of bias then could have been tried earlier, they said.

Jonas Nilsson, the lawyer of Pirate Bay co-founder Fredrik Neij, is not happy with the decision and he said in a response: “The judge has an obligation to inform the parties about circumstances that could be seen as bias. Since he didn’t do that, it’s a mishandled trial. I’m very critical about the appeal court’s reasoning.”

The Pirate Party’s EU parliamentarian Christian Engström is also surprised and angry with the decision: “It is all part of a pattern. It shows that the Swedish judicial system cannot be trusted in copyright cases anymore. The laws may be wrong as well, but in addition to them the courts can’t even use the laws in a correct way. I have been a lay judge for seven years and I have never seen such a bad case as the Pirate Bay case. And still the court sentenced to unbelievable punishments.”

Engström believes the appeal court’s verdict is positive for the Pirate Party. “This shows that the only way to win the fight is through politics. It’s a political issue and it will be settled in the national elections 2010,” he said.

The verdict in the Pirate Bay trial where the four defendants were sentenced to one year in prison and a combined fine of $3,620,000 will now be appealed through the normal route.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

However, the ties to these lobby groups might also cloud his judgment and thus the verdict, some claim. It is therefore highly dubious that Norström was handpicked and not randomly assigned as is normal procedure in cases like this.

Defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson has now sent a letter to the Court of Appeal where he addresses the issue and seems to confirm earlier rumors he shared with the press. “The young generation’s trust in the judicial system is at stake here,” he told the Swedish news agency (TT) in a comment.

“I don’t want to say that the randomness of judge selection has been fixed, but the case has been handed to Norström mainly because he is considered an expert on copyright. That raises questions since this is a criminal case. A large majority of the young generation believes that what is going on here is a farce,” Samuelsson added.

According to Samuelsson, there is no doubt that all the suspicious connections to pro-copyright groups indicate that Norström had preconceived ideas on the issues addressed during the Pirate Bay trial.

“I have a hard time to let go of the thought that he kept quiet about this because he had the intention of using his opinions in the case. I don’t hesitate for a moment when saying that this is bias,” he said.

Henrik Pontén, lawyer at the anti-piracy bureau didn’t want to comment on Samuelsson’s letter to the Appeal Court, and said he will await the court’s decision due to be announced a few weeks from now.

The Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak that the current developments amount to yet another plot twist in the tragicomedy that their trial has turned into. “We will win in the end,” he said, promising a happy ending.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Together with several of the lawyers who represented the movie and music industries, the judge was a member of the Swedish Association of copyright (SFU) and the Swedish Association for Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

These engagements automatically make him a member of two major international pro-copyright organizations, ALAI and AIPPI. In their statutes, these organizations state that it’s their goal to ensure that the interests of copyright holders are satisfied. Indeed, by sentencing the Pirate Bay defendants to a year in prison in addition to the high damages they were ordered to pay, the judge lived up to these expectations.

Initially, many Swedish legal system insiders doubted whether the connections to the Swedish groups were enough to warrant a retrial, but the ties to ALAI and AIPPI have changed that perception, according to Swedish radio. Many of the insiders and experts wish to remain anonymous, but Eric Bylander, Associate Professor of Procedural Law at the University of Gothenburg said that “confidence in the judicial system requires that the court of appeal see this as bias.”

If a retrial is granted this would mean another win for the Pirate Bay defendants and a replay of the ‘Spectrial’, with possibly a rewritten ending. Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde, one of the defendants convicted by the biased judge, hopes to see a retrial. “In the best interest of the Swedish people’s trust in the system a retrial should be not only granted, but pushed for,” he told TorrentFreak. Requests for a retrial have been filed and we will hear more about the outcome in a few weeks.

Aside from the biased judge, Peter and the other defendants will also request a new police investigation. The investigation on which the prosecution built its case was headed by Jim Keyzer, who already knew that he was going to be employed by Warner Bros. when he interviewed the defendants. “We want everything to be in the eye of the public so that we can get help to see that everything is correct,” Peter writes on his blog.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.