To determine if the verdict in the Pirate Bay trial was affected by bias, the connections of Judge Tomas Norström to national and international pro-copyright lobby groups have been reviewed by the Appeal Court. Their 'no bias' ruling can't be appealed which means that there will not be a retrial, instead the verdict in the Pirate Bay trial will be appealed.

A few days after the verdict in the Pirate Bay trial was made public, judge Tomas Norström was heavily criticized for his involvement with pro-copyright lobby groups. To everyone’s surprise, Norström never declared these activities before he took on the case.

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.