While securing access to courtrooms in Sweden seems to bear resemblance with the way researchers negotiate and make their way into many other European courts, in discussions with other courtroom ethnographers it also appears to be remarkably “accessible”. With this in mind, I believe that a more general reflection on obtaining access to the courts of Sweden handling criminal cases affords a valuable story in itself. There are 48 District Courts, 6 Appellate Courts and 1 Supreme Court in Sweden. Similar to the experience of many other courtroom ethnographers I have always started negotiating access with a top-down approach, initially contacting the prosecutor general’s office and chief public prosecutors as well as the Swedish National Courts Administration and chief judges.
Court hearings are open to the public, with exception for proceedings held behind ‘closed doors’, either in totality in order to safeguard vulnerable parties (typically this is done in rape cases) or in part of the proceeding (as when gruesome evidence is presented in murder cases).Due to the principle of public access and the openness in Swedish courts, it is not necessary to have informed consent to conduct courtroom ethnography (Flower 2019). Nevertheless, the presiding judge is obliged to secure the courtroom order and ensure that the court procedure is correct and can decide to turn someone out of the room. While it is not usually researchers making the most fuss in the courtroom, certain behaviours can raise suspicious eyebrows. For example, it is permitted to take notes (by hand or on the computer) and audio-record court hearings, but it is not allowed to take any photos or footage, and using computers without informing the court beforehand can lead to rebukes.
In my experience, the judges in both district and appellate courts have been very accommodating when they have been properly informed about the research project and I have been able to ‘reserve a seat’ in the public gallery in high-profile cases. Similar to other colleagues in Sweden (Uhnoo, Bladini and Wettergren 2023), I have also been able to stay in the courtroom during ‘closed doors’ cases. In an international comparison, the willingness of legal professionals to admit researchers into their everyday work may come across as quite exceptional. Part of the explanation probably lies in the fact that Sweden is a high-trust society, and that the high levels of social trust, sometimes portrayed as the ‘Nordic gold’ (Holmberg and Rothstein 2020) trickle down in access negotiations as a form of more general trust in research and universities. However, many elements factor into questions of access, and on an individual level, long-standing presence in the field, proven tact and trust are obviously key. Colleagues paving the way through their diligence and persistence (Bergman Blix and Wettergren 2018), have also made it possible for me to observe court deliberations by joining their research projects and being able to use their networks as a vehicle for access into these situations surrounded by great secrecy.
As a final note on the more general reflection on doing courtroom ethnography in Sweden and negotiating access, it can be highlighted that the hearings are fairly informal in comparison to many other countries (Dahlberg 2009), playing down the ceremonious order and hierarchy of the courtroom. For example, the judges are already seated when everyone else enters the courtroom so you do not have to stand up when they make an entrance. While the court hearing is adversarial and antagonistic in nature, prosecutors and defence lawyers may well chat outside the courtroom if they believe it will not damage their relation with the involved parties. There are no robes or wigs, and with a black blazer you will blend in well in the courthouse cafeteria. If blending in is what you strive for, that is. The choice of clothes is like every other methodological choice. Tangent with the pervasive question of insider/outsider position in all ethnographic work, both positions come with benefits and challenges.
References
Bergman Blix, S., & Wettergren, Å. (2018). Professional emotions in court: A sociological perspective. Routledge.
Dahlberg, L. (2009). Emotional tropes in the courtroom: On representation of affect and emotion in legal court proceedings. Law and Humanities, 3(2), 175-205.
Flower, L. (2019). Interactional justice: The role of emotions in the performance of loyalty. Routledge.
Holmberg, S. & Rothstein, B. (2020). Social trust – The Nordic Gold? Working Papers, Department of Political Science, Gothenburg University.
Uhnoo, S., Bladini, M., & Wettergren, Å. (2023). Negotiating Access. In: Flower & Klosterkamp (eds) Courtroom Ethnography: Exploring Contemporary Approaches, Fieldwork and Challenges (pp. 33-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.