Ever since the guilty verdict was handed down against the defendants in the Pirate Bay trial, what would happen next had been surrounded by uncertainty. Accusations of bias were leveled at both the original trial judge, and two of the judges set to handle the appeal. Today the Supreme Court handed down its decision - there will be no retrial.

In April this year, all four defendants in the Pirate Bay trial were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison and a fines of $905,000 each. Of course, the defense didn’t accept the decision, and went on to file for an appeal.

The appeal was scheduled to start last month but like most things in this case, it became surrounded in controversy.

According to defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson, two of three judges could be susceptible to bias due to their membership in pro-copyright groups. Ulrika Ihrfelt was a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (SFU) and Christina Boutz a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

The same kind of bias accusations were earlier leveled at Judge Tomas Norstrom who presided over the original trial. The defense felt that if it could get a decision that Norstrom was biased, then the original case would have to be tried all over again, rather than going straight to appeal.

Samuelsson submitted his complaints to the Court of Appeal, but it subsequently ruled that the judgment of the two appeal judges would not be swayed by their involvement in the pro-copyright groups. Then, somewhat predictably, Samuelsson announced he would appeal this decision and take the question of bias to the Supreme Court.

Today the decision on that appeal was announced. The Supreme Court ruled that the defense will be allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of bias in the case of the two appeal judges.

They will not, however, be able to appeal the decision in the case of Judge Tomas Norstrom, despite him being a member of the same copyright groups. Ove Nilsson of the Supreme Court admitted that it “may seem a bit strange” that Norstrom’s case can’t be appealed, but those are the rules.

The appeal of the original case is due to be heard in 2010.