When Erik J. Olsson was acquitted of assault charges in district court, the process was supposed to be over. But for Olsson, it was only the beginning. Today, he is pursuing a private prosecution against the prosecutor who indicted him – in a case that could become unique in Swedish legal history. He tells Samnytt about lowered standards of proof, internal loyalty within the judiciary, and why he believes prosecutors, in practice, protect themselves from accountability.

Erik J. Olsson is a professor of theoretical philosophy and chairman of the foundation Academic Rights Watch, which scrutinizes and defends academic freedom in Sweden. In recent years, he has also made a name for himself as a sharp critic of what he describes as a politicization of the judiciary – not least in matters concerning “men’s violence against women” and the development he believes the consent legislation has contributed to.


SEE ALSO: Authority: Women’s violence against men is “men’s violence against women”

Together with his wife Catharina Grönqvist Olsson, Erik J. Olsson has also authored the book “The Soft State – The Feminization of Society and Its Consequences“, where they argue that Swedish institutions are increasingly characterized by ideological and normative values that threaten to undermine both responsibility and the principles of the rule of law.

The book has sparked debate and has more clearly positioned Olsson as a critical voice in society, even outside academia.

In a previous interview with Samnytt, Olsson also discussed the consequences of the increasing number of female leaders within the police and judicial system in Sweden. However, the main background to this interview is that Olsson was previously prosecuted for assault after an incident at his workplace, a charge he was subsequently acquitted of in district court. After his acquittal, he chose not to let the matter rest.

SEE ALSO: More female police chiefs take their place – Professor explains how the legal system is changing

On the contrary, he has taken a step that is very unusual in Swedish law – he has attempted to have the prosecutor who brought charges against him tried for what the penal code calls unfounded prosecution, i.e., bringing a case despite lacking sufficient grounds.


Olsson tells Samnytt that his motivation is not primarily about personal vindication, but the principle that prosecutors also need to be held accountable when, in his view, they proceed on too weak a basis.

SEE ALSO: Feminist filter: How violence against men is swept away from government educational material

He believes that there is a culture of internal loyalty within the prosecutorial service, where the boundary for what is considered a justified prosecution is rarely tested on its merits – and that the only realistic route, therefore, can be a private prosecution, driven by an individual outside the system.


In the interview, Olsson describes his views on evidence, intent assessment, and self-defense in his own case, but also why he believes a broader shift has occurred in Swedish legal practice.

In the worst case, yes, it’s a way to try to silence people. It’s interesting that the book I wrote with my wife – The Soft State. The Feminization of Society and Its Consequences – was released just a few months before the indictment. It’s actually mentioned in the preliminary investigation as an aggravating circumstance. That’s troubling. It leads one to wonder: is this some kind of punishment for what I’ve written?

Erik J. Olsson, Professor of Theoretical Philosophy and Chairman of Academic Rights Watch

He is especially troubled by what he perceives as low standards of proof in consent cases, something Samnytt has reported on before, and fears that the same logic risks spreading to other types of crimes. If the trend continues, he argues, legal certainty itself is threatened – and it is this key issue he now wants to have tested in court.

The boundary between justified and unjustified prosecution has never been tested

You have chosen to proceed legally against the prosecutor who indicted you. What specifically made you not let the matter rest after your acquittal?


– What struck me was how strange it is that someone can be prosecuted on such flimsy grounds. When I saw how weak the evidence was, I started investigating if there was even a possibility to hold prosecutors accountable. I wanted to see if what is sometimes perceived as activism within the prosecution service can actually be curbed legally. He continues:


– There are requirements for prosecutors. They must not bring charges lightly. The law has two relevant offenses: one is false prosecution, which means deliberately trying to convict someone you know is innocent. I don’t think that applies to my case. The other is unfounded prosecution – bringing charges despite lacking sufficient grounds. That’s what I believe applies here. Olsson elaborates:


SEE ALSO: Silent Judicial Scandal: Young men convicted of rape without evidence

– In my case, there was very little evidence. The injuries the woman claimed were clearly exaggerated, which is evident in the judgment. There were also several circumstances in my favor that were never even presented in the indictment.
I had no intent to harm anyone. Someone barged into my office and refused to leave.

The prosecution service has no interest in prosecuting their own. There is a kind of tacit mutual understanding. If I start prosecuting a colleague, the next colleague might prosecute me. It becomes a sort of self-insurance. In practice, the part of the law concerning prosecutors’ accountability has been abolished – by never applying it.

Erik J. Olsson, Professor of Theoretical Philosophy and Chairman of Academic Rights Watch

– It wasn’t me who barged into her space. To claim that I intended to harm is practically absurd. I simply wanted to get rid of a person who would not leave my office. One must have the right to defend one’s own space. If you take away that right, we are in trouble, says Erik J. Olsson.

Can the prosecution against you be seen as a form of “cancel culture”?

– Yes, in the worst case, it’s a way to try to silence people. It’s interesting that the book I wrote with my wife – The Soft State. The Feminization of Society and Its Consequences – was published just a few months before the indictment. It is actually cited in the preliminary investigation as an aggravating circumstance. That is concerning. It makes you wonder: is this some kind of punishment for what I have written? He continues:


SEE ALSO: Men who are discouraged from reporting violence – and a legal system that doesn’t want to listen

– I am an academic, I am used to reading legal texts, I have resources. But what happens to people who don’t? That is what drives me to pursue this further. An ordinary person, without knowledge of the legal system, can be completely crushed. Many hardly even understand what they are charged with. Erik J. Olsson continues:


– I founded Academic Rights Watch, a foundation that monitors academic rights. I have read lots of investigations and seen the mistakes that are made. But what if you don’t have that background. Then you are extremely exposed.

The prosecution service has no interest in prosecuting their own

Where do things stand legally for you right now?


– First I reported the prosecutor to the police for unfounded prosecution. The case landed at the Prosecutor’s Office, but a chief prosecutor dropped it directly, with a very weak reasoning. He even changed the legal classification to something else entirely, unclear what. It went all the way up to the Prosecutor General, where I got a flat-out no. He continues:


– Then I chose to do what very few people do – to bring a private prosecution. That means I myself act as the prosecutor in the case. The defendant is the prosecutor who brought charges against me. The roles are completely reversed. He elaborates:


SEE ALSO: The Mannaminne Network leads protests against the breakdown of the rule of law

– This is extremely rare. There are perhaps only a handful of previous cases, but in principle this is never tested. The question now to be determined is – where is the boundary between justified and unjustified prosecution? This question has never been seriously examined in modern times. Olsson continues:


– The prosecution service has no interest in prosecuting their own. There is a tacit understanding. If I start charging a colleague, the next colleague could indict me. It becomes a kind of self-insurance. In practice they have abolished that part of the law regarding prosecutors’ responsibility – by never applying it.

Can this be described as corruption?


– Yes, it is a kind of value-based corruption. A professional group that protects itself from legal scrutiny. It is a serious breach of public trust. They protect themselves from criminal complaints, even while having the power to indict others.

It borders on defamation to allege intent without evidence

What is legally decisive in your private prosecution, in your opinion?


– The issue of intent is central. The prosecutor claims I had intent to harm a woman. But there is no evidence of that, it’s just an assertion. That borders on defamation. Had a private individual done the same, it would likely have been tried as defamation.

I want to hold activist prosecutors to account. I want to reintroduce real official responsibility. That’s good even for serious prosecutors, who today are affected when public trust erodes. The public knows almost nothing about this. But more and more people are affected. I think this will become a major issue going forward – whether it’s about my case or others. This is a growing problem in both the judiciary and politics.

Erik J. Olsson, Professor of Theoretical Philosophy and Chairman of Academic Rights Watch

– Another central point is self-defense. That has not been considered at all. If someone refuses to leave your room you are allowed to physically remove the person, within reasonable limits. But there is no indication that the prosecutor considered this, continues Olsson, and adds:


– There was also a medical examination of the woman after the incident, which did not show any of the injuries she claimed. The district court noted that as well.

SEE ALSO: INTERVIEW: Tinder date ended in 54 months in prison and nearly a million in damages – without evidence

Lower standards of proof from consent cases are spreading

You have also spoken of lower standards of proof in cases concerning “men’s violence against women”?

– Yes. I have looked closely at the consent cases, and the development there is dismal. The woman’s testimony often becomes decisive. If there are two people she has told, that is often seen as sufficient. Those are extremely low standards of proof. Olsson continues:


– In my case it’s the same. A woman says something, two people she spoke with repeat her version – and that is considered enough for prosecution. I believe what has happened is that the lower standards of proof from sexual offenses have started contaminating other types of crimes. If that’s true, it is very serious.

SEE ALSO: The court believes – and your future is lost

What do you fundamentally want to achieve with the private prosecution?


– This area is politicized. When crimes become political projects, the risk is that the rule of law is sacrificed. There is pressure to obtain more convictions, to demonstrate decisiveness – and then people can be prosecuted on grounds that are not legally sufficient. He continues:


– I want to hold activist prosecutors to account. I want to reintroduce real official responsibility. That’s good even for serious prosecutors, who today are affected when public trust erodes. Olsson concludes:


– The public knows almost nothing about this. But more and more people are affected. I think this will become a major issue going forward – whether it’s about my case or others. This is a growing problem in both the judiciary and politics.

The court is now set to rule on a case that rarely – if ever – reaches the courts. The outcome may have significance not only for Erik J. Olsson, but also for the view of prosecutors’ responsibility and the legal system’s ability to self-correct.