Anonymous witnesses

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When a serious crime is committed and a witness or the witness's relatives risk serious consequences as a result of a testimony, there are parties in this assembly who believe that it is very important that the perpetrator finds out the name and address of the witness so that the criminal network that the perpetrator has behind them can easily take measures leading to the witness being silenced. That order, which has prevailed under red-green governments, has led to criminal networks being able to commit murders with the knowledge that witnesses will not come forward.

Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet consider that there is a reasonable balance of power in the war against organized crime. It should be said that the Socialdemokrater opposed proposals for anonymous witnesses in preliminary investigations and in courts for approximately one hundred percent of their time in government when they held the initiative in Swedish politics. Now they appear to be turning on a dime in this issue as well. But for those who consider it reasonable that vulnerable witnesses should be able to be protected by anonymity, it is important to remember that such an arrangement can only be put in place when the Socialdemokrater are in opposition.

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Sweden Democrats and the Moderate-led government, we are now introducing the possibility for vulnerable witnesses to testify anonymously.

Mr. Speaker! A system with anonymous witnesses in court is both tested and permitted according to the European Court of Human Rights and is implemented in our neighboring countries and a number of other European countries. Sweden has until now lacked such an opportunity, despite the fact that serious organized crime is particularly prominent in Sweden. If there is any country that would be served by an opportunity to testify anonymously, it is Sweden, where we have seen a widespread culture of silence and deadly violence against witnesses and their relatives.

In Sweden, the Sverigedemokraterna and Kristdemokraterna already wanted to introduce the possibility of testifying anonymously in certain cases ten years ago. With the benefit of hindsight, one can say that it was needed already then. Now we at least have a government in place that dares to try new ground to gain an advantage over organized crime. Anonymous witnesses are a part of that work.

The government is also doing other things that strengthen the protection for witnesses, including a review of criminal law and measures that strengthen the police and prosecutors' possibilities to investigate crimes. In this context, I also want to state that both the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Prosecution Authority have for several years requested the possibility for witnesses to testify anonymously. One guess is that for very many years they have been aware that there are valuable witness statements that do not reach them but which would have been of significance both in court and in preliminary investigations if they could have been protected by anonymity.

Many citizens who live near serious crimes committed in a gang-related context may perhaps wish to testify themselves to put an end to the violence or wish that others would dare to testify. But because of the threat against them, which they believe to exist on good grounds, they remain silent.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that a system with anonymous witnesses will be welcomed by the police, prosecutors, and citizens who want to see an advantage against the criminal gangs. I note that the biggest opponents to offensive proposals in the fight against organized crime are obviously the criminals themselves, but even the red-green parties in this assembly join that opposition. That being said, I move for approval of the bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, news flashes appeared on my mobile phone that stuck in my retina. They were about witnesses who were being threatened in an ongoing gang-related trial in southern Stockholm. Stones had been thrown at residences where there were people who themselves lacked any gang connections, and threatening messages had been received.

Gang violence has become so brutal, so boundless and so widespread that it almost passes by unnoticed. But such incidents are not unique, they happen as frequently as ever. It is appalling and hardly normal in a civilized society.

What the proposal on anonymous witnesses is fundamentally about is the possibility to, under certain conditions – during a preliminary investigation or in a criminal case in court – testify anonymously. The purpose is to get more people to tell what they know without them needing to risk threats and revenge and to break the culture of silence through stronger witness protection and thereby solve more crimes.

Before I go into the arguments behind our position, I want to clarify that we Social Democrats support the government's bill, but that we also have a follow-up motion concerning the evaluation of the law and the need for stronger and broader protection for witnesses beyond the possibility of testifying anonymously. I therefore want to move for the approval of our reservations, namely numbers 2 and 3, as we unfortunately have not received support for those parts from the Tidö parties.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a persistent national crisis. Week after week we wake up to war-like reports of the night's new shootings and explosions. It is obvious that no government, neither the previous nor the current, has succeeded in reversing the development. In several respects, it is even continuing in the wrong direction. More innocent Swedes are affected and hit in their everyday lives. The violence is becoming ever more crude, constantly new boundaries are crossed, and above all, it is creeping down in age.

Only during the last year has the number of children under 15 years old involved in murder cases increased by 200 percent. We cannot have it this way. Ordinary people are afraid to go to work, and children are being sent off on murder missions.

We must treat the situation as the crisis situation it actually is. Society must continue to move the positions forward. This means that the policy needs to continue to act with even more force, purposefully and quickly.

To break gang crime's grip on society, it is not enough to continue in the same old tracks; instead, a completely new approach is now required. It is absolutely necessary to continue the work that the previous S-led government began by toughening sentences and investing in the police, which the new government has taken over. But honestly: It will not be enough. For it to have an effect, the gang leaders, who are walking free today, must also be imprisoned and new recruitment must be broken.

It means that we must do things that were not relevant previously. We need to be prepared to do everything that is required as long as it is accurate and legally sound. We Social Democrats have, among other things, proposed a mafia law to reach the gang leaders and also the identification of young people on the move to break the new recruitment.

Anonymous witnesses are another example of a new tool that may be needed in the toolbox. In fact, the issue was investigated already during the previous Sledda government, but the investigation advised against introducing anonymous witnesses as it considered it to be an all-too extensive reform in relation to the presumed limited gains.

But as the committee notes in the report: "The situation has worsened significantly just in recent years and is today different from when previous investigations considered whether a system with anonymous witnesses should be introduced." This is what the Tidö parties have signed off on. These lines summarize the Social Democrats' position here today quite well. The situation requires that the law enforcement authorities have at their disposal more effective legal tools and methods in order to address the serious gang-related crime.

During the previous parliamentary term, we therefore did not proceed with a proposal on anonymous witnesses, even though we investigated the issue – the first step in the legislative process – but we chose to focus on other things, such as a historical expansion of the police.

We initiated the largest criminal policy reform in 60 years, if we are to believe the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice, with new forfeiture legislation to be able to seize the gangs' crime profits. The law only began to apply a few weeks ago. We also expanded the possibilities for secret coercive measures and tightened eighty penalties.

In light of the fact that we are now taking a position on anonymous witnesses, I would like to address the main objections and explain our view on those aspects.

Perhaps the most significant criticism, also from the Council on Legislation, is that it becomes an odd bird in Swedish law that challenges methods of work and prevailing principles and will therefore place high demands on adaptation. So it is; there is no point in hiding it. Therefore, it is reasonable to have apprehensions.

On the other hand, it is not at all impossible to implement the proposal on anonymous witnesses in a legally secure manner. This has been shown by many of our neighboring countries, including all neighboring countries. It is, as said, obvious that we are now in a situation where society must continue to move forward and where politics needs to test new methods.

In other respects, it can be said that the criticism has primarily rested on two pillars: concern for the consequences for legal certainty on the one hand, and toothlessness and inefficiency on the other.

The proposal now contains a number of legal certainty guarantees, which is good and something we Social Democrats welcome. This applies in particular to the fact that a lack of knowledge regarding the witness's identity will affect the evidentiary value. Also, suitability assessment and the possibility of appeal are important legal certainty guarantees.

Where do we stand with the risk of it becoming an inefficient tool? Is it then worth it? Even though much suggests that it may come to be used relatively sparingly, which the experiences from other countries show at least, it cannot be ruled out that it may come to be used more often in Sweden given that we have a gang criminality that stands out.

The Prosecution Authority also points out that even if it turns out to be used sparingly, when it is used, it can be of decisive importance, not least for conducting preliminary investigations that lead to other incriminating evidence further ahead. The latter is perhaps the strongest argument for introducing anonymous witnesses.

Against this background and the various considerations I have set out, we Social Democrats stand behind the government's proposal. Sweden is in a national crisis, and we must be prepared to try new methods. However, we believe that the government must take two aspects of this issue more seriously.

One is the witness protection. The Government needs to return to the Riksdag with more measures for a strengthened witness protection and, in addition, clarify how it shall be guaranteed that witnesses' identities are not revealed.

The second is that such a deviation in Swedish legal tradition naturally needs to be properly evaluated. It is surprising that the government has not proposed this in the bill, but even more remarkable is perhaps that the government's basis has not complied with the proposal, when it was indeed placed on the table as a supplementary proposal.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats, as stated, say yes to the introduction of anonymous witnesses. Gang crime is escalating and creeping further down in age. We are prepared to do what is required to reverse the development and break the culture of silence that maintains the gangs' violence capital, not least in vulnerable areas.

Society's interventions must, of course, be legally sound and accurate, and we assess that the proposal is.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As Winnerbäck sings in Söndermarken, it was a Tuesday in October, just before it darkened, that the world was informed that the Social Democrats, in yet another political issue, have turned 180 degrees and thus said yes to anonymous witnesses.

It is in itself nothing strange for a politician or a political party to reassess positions – that is done from time to time. But the Social Democrats' handling of the issue of anonymous witnesses leaves some question marks for both me and many others.

The Moderates were against anonymous witnesses. They had the issue up for their party congress in the autumn of 2017. Their party board wanted to change the direction on the issue, but the then party secretary Gunnar Strömmer was against it, as was the then MUF chairman Benjamin Dousa. They have had a debate where they have clashed and argued, re-evaluated, and taken a position. As outsiders, one has been able to follow the process and see the transformation.

The Social Democrats opposed this most strongly during eight years in government. Teresa Carvalho's predecessor, who was Minister for Justice, was perhaps even more convinced than I was in his opposition to this. It was an announcement from the committee that forced the then S-MP government to investigate it.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats talk about crisis awareness, but I think it seems more like they are panicking and just following the Moderates instead of making any independent analysis. Did they not have crisis awareness in 2016, 2019, or 2023?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the question.

I can assure Rasmus Ling that we have had a debate about this proposal in our party. We have a parliamentary group that takes a position on the proposals that are placed on the Riksdag's table. Obviously, we have had discussions and turned this question over and over.

We cannot decide that the government should wait with its bill because we have our congress later in the autumn. That might have been the very best for us – to get an even stronger mandate to say yes to the proposal – but now the proposal is on the table. The vote in the Riksdag takes place tomorrow, and this debate is held today – we cannot wait with our positions.

We have turned the question over and over and concluded that the reasons to say yes today outweigh the reasons to say no. We, as mentioned, had this issue investigated already during our time in government, and that investigation advised against introducing anonymous witnesses. That was also why we chose not to proceed with a bill. We chose instead to focus on other things, such as tightening a long series of penalties and investing historically much in the police. We also initiated the forfeiture legislation so that the police would have the opportunity to seize the gangs' criminal profits.

But now there is a bill on the table, and we have taken a position on whether we should say yes or no to it. It is therefore not about whether legislative capacity should be allocated to producing a bill, for that has already been done. Given that the proposal is now designed in a way that makes it legally secure, we are confident in saying yes.

The situation advocates that politics should do more to push back gang crime. This is not solely the solution, but it is one piece of a very large puzzle.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I received no answer to the question of whether the crisis insight was missing in 2016, 2019, or until September or October 2024.

I do not expect the government to adapt to either the Social Democrats' or other parties' congresses. The strange thing is that parties have such things only occasionally, so one could have taken a position on this in 2016, 2019, or 2022, which was the most recent occasion.

It is a very regrettable fact, Mr. Speaker, that the situation for witnesses has been catastrophic for a long time. Many are, on good grounds, afraid to testify. We must take this most seriously. I completely share Teresa Carvalho's view that significantly more must be done to strengthen witness protection and that more measures must be taken to improve it. Things were done during previous parliamentary terms – including the introduction of the possibility to testify remotely. More needs to be done, however.

However, introducing a system with anonymous witnesses will not contribute to a solution or an improvement. The concerns that the Social Democrats highlight in their follow-up motion, which Teresa Carvalho mentioned briefly, are worth taking significantly more seriously than the Social Democrats do.

An aspect that has been raised far too little in this context is what happens in cases where a court has ruled that a witness may remain anonymous but the identity is revealed for one reason or another. Where should the responsibility lie from the state's side – regarding the disclosure – if the state has guaranteed anonymity but the anonymity is revealed and then something happens to the person in question? I think that it should be highlighted more than it has been.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the last point, I naturally agree with Rasmus Ling and note that this is something we have motioned for in connection with the bill that the government is presenting. I can only regret that the government has not concurred with the additional proposals we have submitted regarding strengthened witness protection and evaluating this law. It should be quite uncontentious to evaluate the law if one is as certain as the Tidö parties seem to be on this issue. I think it is a pity that our follow-up proposals are not being met.

Regarding the question of crisis awareness, I think it may be precisely crisis awareness here and now that is most relevant for those listening to this debate. What are the different parties prepared to do to push back gang crime? It is clear that one can reason about what position different parties took in 2016, 2019, or whatever years it was that were mentioned here. It is also very possible that we should have landed there earlier. I can however state, just as the committee has stated in the report, that the development has been quite dramatic since then. There is a worse situation today, not least seen in the fact that there are so many children in our country who are drawn into very grave and serious crime. It is going in the wrong direction.

Now it is a matter for all parties to reach a sense of crisis and be prepared to do things they previously did not think they would be prepared to do. For our part, this has led to us taking a stand to introduce anonymous witnesses, not because we believe this is the magic solution to the gigantic problems in Sweden, but because it might help in some cases. Perhaps it can also, together with very many other reforms, help to push back organized crime.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Even though I do not share the opinion of Rasmus Ling on the issue, I agree with the analysis of the Social Democrats' wavering stance on very many issues within crime policy. I also wonder where the sense of crisis was in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and so on. This issue has been debated. I have had several debates with Morgan Johansson, who was the Social Democrats' Minister for Justice for eight years, and have met compact resistance not only in this issue but also in many others. There has been compact resistance against anonymous witnesses in court.

Is it a coincidence that the Social Democrats now, when sitting in opposition and these proposals nevertheless have enough support to pass in the Riksdag, are reassessing their own policy and giving a different impression outwardly? I do not think it is a coincidence, but I think it is about a well-calculated analysis. In public opinion, they do not want to be opponents of offensive proposals to address a very serious social problem in issues where the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna have high credibility. They do not want to be in opposition to that type of policy, because it would be bad optics for the Socialdemokraterna. There we probably have the reason why they swing on issue after issue.

Now, one has pivoted on the issue of RICO laws. One has pivoted on the issue of detention sentences, or security sentences. One has pivoted on the issue of anonymous witnesses. One has pivoted on issue after issue that the Sweden Democrats and other parties have pushed in opposition to a red-green government that has been against these proposals. Does Teresa Carvalho consider that Morgan Johansson has been an asset or a burden for Swedish crime policy? For eight years, one was against everything that one now claims to be for.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Politics is not something static. It would be strange if politics were unable to develop in step with society. Sweden is in a national crisis when it comes to gang crime. In several respects, it is even going in the wrong direction. The situation requires us to do very much more and for politics to take its responsibility by acting resolutely and daring to use new tools.

We Social Democrats have reassessed this issue and want to introduce anonymous witnesses because we see that it is urgent to break the culture of silence that maintains the gangs' capital of violence and intimidation, not least in vulnerable areas. We expect other parties to similarly manage to reassess previous positions and for, for example, the Tidö parties to manage to lift their eyes from the two-year-old Tidö Agreement and do everything that is required, also such things as are not written there, for example to introduce a Swedish mafia law, pinpoint every youth drifting into serious crime and to pull the emergency brake and put a stop to the HVB failure so that we avoid more reports of children being recruited for murder missions at HVB homes run by gang criminals.

I must also say that in a national crisis, it should be perceived as a strength to have broad support behind new tools, and there should be little room for bickering. But here, Adam Marttinen has in just a few seconds managed to turn this issue into a political game and bickering about who is taking whom. I think it is to belittle the seriousness of this situation, and I am sure that those listening to the debate are significantly more interested in hearing what the different parties want to do to break the development and turn around the societal problems.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is my democratic duty to make visible which political alternatives exist, not in the spectacle we see from the Social Democrats but in reality. A Moderate-led government with the support of the Sweden Democrats is required to get anonymous witnesses, security penalties, and RICO laws in place. It is claimed in the debate that we should not introduce RICO laws, but in the Tidö Agreement, it states regarding participation in criminal organization, which is a part of the RICO laws. Crown witnesses we already have in place. Thus, the Social Democrats do not have so much more to contribute.

As has been said, it is an important democratic revelation that what we hear from the Social Democrats in opposition has not been the reality during all their years in government. At that time, there has been a compact resistance against just the proposals they now claim to be for. What happens if one tries to gain political credibility in these issues and, God forbid, wins the election and sits on the lap of the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Left Party who are against it? What happens then with these specific issues? It is important for the voters to know that the Social Democrats yield very easily to the resistance that exists in their government base, and then we get no decisiveness from the Social Democrats in practice. We have also seen evidence of this in reality. We know what we have received and what we can expect from the Social Democrats. But when Sweden got a new government in place, things began to happen in the crime policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Adam Marttinen seems, as said, more interested in blowing up a non-existent conflict in an issue where we are in agreement and making this into a quarrel over who should take whom. It is very possible that the Sverigedemokraterna have already decided to continue cooperating with the Moderaterna and Liberalerna after the next election, but we Socialdemokraterna actually intended to let the voters have their say first. I represent the Socialdemokraterna, not some pre-determined government alternative. I represent our position in this issue here today, and we therefore say yes to introducing anonymous witnesses. But now it almost seems as if Adam Marttinen does not want a broad consensus around new tools to combat organized crime.

Why have we reassessed our position on this issue? During our government's term, the issue was investigated, and the investigation advised against proceeding with a legislative proposal. At that time, we chose to focus the legislative resources on other things, such as toughening eighty sentences, developing the forfeiture law, which gives the police the opportunity to seize the gangs' criminal profits, and a number of other things.

But since then, quite a bit has happened. Firstly, the crisis has worsened, which the Sweden Democrats themselves have acknowledged in the committee's report. In the last year alone, that is during the time the Sweden Democrats have been a supporting party to the government, the number of children involved in murder cases has increased by 200 percent. Secondly, the proposal has been reformulated to also include a number of legal certainty guarantees, which makes it possible for us to say yes to the proposal. It is no stranger than that, Adam Marttinen.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The situation regarding organized crime in Sweden remains serious. The crime is a threat to the system and undermines and threatens our free and open society. The most obvious and visible expressions of this crime, namely the spiral of violence we see with shootings and explosions at a level that is completely without contemporary parallels in countries we normally compare ourselves with, demonstrate the criminal gangs' ruthlessness.

We have a crime that is eating its way into the body of society and making money on everything from drugs to fraud. Criminals infiltrate state authorities, municipal administrations, political parties and private companies. The criminal gangs silence witnesses with their capital of violence, which makes many crime investigations concerning the criminal networks difficult to conclude.

To push back this crime, the government is now reforming the crime policy, and the Tidö Agreement contains a large number of offensive and pattern-breaking measures. It is about hitting hard against gross violence, strangling the criminal economy, and breaking the recruitment of children and young people. We now have a government that not only has the will but also the competence and the decisiveness required to turn words into action.

There is no single answer or individual reform that will turn the development on its own; rather, it is a long-term and methodical work that is required. The Kristersson Government has, during the more than two years since it took office, presented a long series of reforms that step by step make Sweden safer. When the Riksdag tomorrow is to decide on the government's bill on anonymous witnesses, we will take another important step to make it harder to be a criminal in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In the bill on anonymous witnesses, it is proposed that a witness shall be allowed to provide information under anonymity if there is a tangible risk that the witness or the witness's close relatives will be subjected to serious crime. The crime for which the witness is to be heard must either have a minimum sentence of two years' imprisonment or a judged penalty value of at least two years' imprisonment. The reasons for hearing a witness anonymously must also outweigh the difficulties it entails for a suspect's or the accused's opportunity to prepare and carry out their defense. Furthermore, other measures to protect the witness must be insufficient or significantly more difficult to implement, and it must otherwise be appropriate to hear the witness anonymously.

The possibility of hearing a witness anonymously shall therefore constitute an exceptional case. But it is also important that the regulations are designed in such a way that they can be used in cases where the prosecutor deems it necessary. A prosecutor, suspect, or defendant who wishes to invoke an anonymous witness testimony shall apply for it at the district court, which shall make the decision in the matter.

A witness shall be able to be heard anonymously both during the preliminary investigation and in court.

The anonymous testimony may, depending on when during the legal process it is conducted, have different purposes. The prosecution, for example, emphasizes the importance of being able to hear a witness anonymously during the preliminary investigation in order to move the investigation forward. But it must also be possible for a witness who has been heard anonymously in the preliminary investigation to also be called upon in a court proceeding. It is therefore not appropriate to limit the possibility of providing anonymous testimony to only apply during the preliminary investigation.

The regulation of anonymous witnesses is also proposed to include several legal certainty guarantees: The court judging the case shall not have knowledge of the anonymous witness's identity – i.e., have the same knowledge of the witness as the suspect – a public representative shall be appointed to monitor legal certainty issues in the case, and the court's decision shall be possible to appeal. A central element in the legal certainty guarantee is also that the court's free assessment of the weight of an anonymous witness's testimony will be made starting from the point that the information is provided anonymously.

Let me also, Mr. Speaker, take the opportunity to comment on the reservations in the matter. There is a reservation from S that a thorough evaluation should be carried out within a required timeframe. In that part, we fundamentally have no other opinion than the Social Democrats. But given that the government in the bill has expressed that there are reasons to follow up on the law and its application after it has been in force for a while, we believe there is no reason for the Riksdag to issue a motion to the government.

There are also two dissenting reservations from Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet respectively and Socialdemokraterna regarding the development of witness protection. This is described in the report for the investigation that was submitted in 2021, where the need to develop witness protection was examined.

The investigation did not find that there were grounds to change the legislation regulating the Swedish Police Authority's personal security work. The investigation stated that the activity is currently relatively unregulated, which makes it possible to adapt the protective measures to different types of situations.

It does not mean that nothing is being done. The Police Authority is working on its own to strengthen the work on crime victims and personal safety, among other things by revising and fully implementing the guidelines and methodological support that exist for the operations.

The Government also intends to return to the Riksdag with a proposition on more effective contact prohibition legislation. In the investigation that forms the basis for the upcoming proposition, it is proposed that contact prohibitions, with or without conditions on electronic surveillance, should be able to be used as a protection in a legal process where the defendant, witnesses, or other persons under interrogation risk being threatened or subjected to violence.

Due to the work currently underway and the fact that there are already several unfinished announcements regarding strengthened witness protection, there is also no reason here to issue announcements to the government.

Finally, I can state that the red-green government option consisting of the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet stands deeply divided on the issue of the need to introduce the possibility of hearing witnesses anonymously.

We have noted that the Social Democrats have the ambition to align themselves as closely as possible with the government when it comes to issues of law and order. It is, of course, a welcome awakening. But I note, however, that the comrades in the red-green opposition vote no to many of the pattern-breaking reforms that the government puts forward.

The risk is therefore that Swedish crime policy with a future red-green government would again be characterized by the paralysis of action that we remember from previous mandate periods with a Social Democratic government.

Mr. Speaker! Criminal gangs threaten and silence witnesses. That the culture of silence can be broken and the protection for witnesses strengthened is crucial for trust in our legal system. The possibility of hearing witnesses anonymously is limited and shall be used in exceptional cases. But the possibility may come to be decisive for achieving success in the fight against serious organized crime.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Kärrholm (M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden today has a grave organized crime on the advance, with deadly shootings and explosions as the worst of the consequences. We need to act powerfully from the public side. The Centre Party has been for in great measure all the effective tools that solve those problems.

Regarding the legislation we are discussing today, the government itself says that it will not be used by gang criminals or those close to them, either for prosecution or for victims. Thus, we can conclude that the law cannot be expected to break the culture of silence that we see within the criminal gangs.

Furthermore, the law is not judged to be used particularly often, but in very few cases, and then with a very low evidentiary value - if any. It will not mean anything for the outcome of the cases. It turns in itself valuable witnesses into almost worthless witnesses.

However, the law will create a great expectation among many to be able to testify anonymously. The justice system will then have to deal with their disappointment. The risk is then that we will have fewer who choose to testify than before the introduction of the law. I would like to hear how the member views the risks and how they have been considered.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is entirely correct that the system of anonymous witnesses will be used in relatively few cases. But we also see how the criminal gangs, with their capital of violence, silence witnesses.

It does not only concern other gang criminals, but ordinary, honest citizens. In districts where the criminal gangs dominate, witnesses are intimidated from participating in legal proceedings. Can this system in some cases lead to witnesses daring to provide important information that can move legal proceedings forward, we argue that it is an important contribution.

My question to Member Liljeberg is: How does the Center Party view the possibilities for anonymous witness statements in preliminary investigations and the possibility that it could mean, which the Prosecution Authority also points out, to move investigations forward, which in turn can lead to further evidence that can be used in the court proceedings?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is common for anonymous tips to occur in very many investigations. They are an important part of them. But this proposal will make very important witnesses who are valuable, such as opportunity witnesses, worthless.

They will not have a decisive effect at all, as the member says. They are important for investigating crimes. But with their anonymity, they will not obtain the weight they need. They will not be able to be used as the tool that crime victims need.

We are for technical evidence, digital traces, cameras, wiretapping, DNA evidence and much more that has been proposed and exists. We are for crown witnesses and witness protection programs. We can review the sentencing scales for perjury and offenses in legal proceedings.

But this is a strange bird in our legal system. The risk is that the new law will cost more than it tastes. It is like a hammer when we actually need a screwdriver in the preliminary investigations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The government is, as said, taking many important measures to tackle the criminal gangs. The issue of anonymous witnesses is one part, and it shall be used in exceptional cases.

But as both the Prosecution Authority and the Police Authority have stated, one sees a great benefit in being able to use this tool. Even if it is not used in very many cases, it can have great significance in the individual cases. It thus has great significance for being able to reach the leadership in criminal networks and push back the serious organized crime further.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Groundbreaking – that is the term that the Moderaterna, not least the Minister for Justice, have used to describe the measure regarding anonymous witnesses.

One can, of course, put different meanings into a concept such as pattern-breaking. It could be about something that is just completely new and that deviates from the way one works. But I believe that many have expectations that pattern-breaking, when one talks about gang crime, means that it is something that is supposed to have a major effect when it comes to dealing with the situation.

Mr. Speaker! Now we have heard Mikael Damsgaard modify this somewhat in his speech and say that it probably will not have any particularly large effect. One can look at the neighboring countries that have the system to see that it has only been used in a small handful of cases. In the investigation that was published in 2021, it appears that in Norway there was not a single case where anonymous witnesses had been used during a 20-year period. In Finland, which has had the system since 2012, there was one case. In Denmark, there were fewer than a handful of cases.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask Mikael Damsgaard what effect he believes this will have. The Council on Legislation has rejected the proposal in its entirety but also judged that it will have very little effect. And on the other side of the scale: Regarding the concerns that exist, not least the risk that fewer will testify openly – how does Mikael Damsgaard view that risk, and how has he assessed it when he has stood behind the proposal?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! When comparing with our Nordic neighboring countries, it is a comparison that holds up well as long as they have been able to introduce such a system in a legally secure manner. They have been able to follow international conventions, which Sweden can also do.

However, the comparison falters when it comes to the extent to which one can imagine that this type of system would be used, because the social development looks completely different. In Denmark, Norway, and Finland, there were a total of eight fatal shootings during 2022. In Sweden, there were over 60. We have a completely different prevalence of serious organized crime and serious violence than our Nordic neighboring countries do. Against that background, I see it as likely that the instrument will be used significantly more often in Sweden than it is in our Nordic neighboring countries.

Then it must continue to be an instrument used in exceptional cases, and this must be clear. The basic principle is that one testifies openly in court. This is a form of testimony where high requirements are set for it to be carried out.

The Crime Prevention Council has been given a mandate to produce information material and communicate regarding how the system works and what it means to testify in court.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! More than zero times, more than once, or more than a maximum of a handful of times during a period of 10-20 years is not particularly often.

It is completely true that we have more shootings in Sweden than one has in our neighboring countries and a worse problem. But the question is what weighs heaviest - the advantages that this system could potentially have or the disadvantages that many referral bodies, including the Council on Legislation, and critics point out. Mikael Damsgaard did not answer any of the questions regarding the negative fears that exist.

Mr. Speaker! I have a simple and straightforward question: Does Mikael Damsgaard believe that there is anyone who prefers to testify openly rather than testify anonymously? And does he believe that the possibility for some to testify anonymously will influence those who might otherwise have testified openly to not do so at all?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Naturally, there are many who may be anxious about testifying. Here, the prosecutor and the police have an incredibly important role in motivating and making people feel safe about testifying in court. It is a challenge today, and it will be a challenge in the future. I do not see that this bill will have any decisive significance in that part.

I can once again state that both the Swedish Police Authority and the Prosecution Authority see that there can be great benefit from this instrument. This applies in particular within the framework of preliminary investigations, where anonymous witness statements can move criminal investigations forward. It can result in obtaining other leads and a different type of evidence that can then also be used in court. Consequently, more people who commit serious crimes within the framework of serious organized crime can also be convicted.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will move to reject the government's bill. But since I do not believe that such a decision will be made in the chamber tomorrow, I also move for approval of reservation 4, which entails a requirement that the government appoints an inquiry into a new, strengthened personal security program that could seriously break the culture of silence and protect not only witnesses but also crime victims.

Vänsterpartiet naturally shares the government's assessment that the culture of silence and the development of violence that exists is very worrying. It exists particularly around criminal networks and in politically neglected areas, which is deeply problematic. Addressing the culture of silence is an important issue that must be taken most seriously. But a system with anonymous witnesses is not the right way.

Law is frozen politics. A political majority can push through the legislative proposals it desires. But law is also an academic subject and a field of expertise. It places demands on fundamental values and human rights which, especially after the Second World War, have developed as a defense against various abuses. It is about respect for our constitutional laws and for conventions that Sweden has signed. I mean that the SD-led government often undermines central values, and this very often concerns issues of the rule of law.

The current reform has also been prepared in a strange way despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that the issue has been the subject of several inquiries. Several inquiries have advised against implementation. This was very clear in the previous inquiry. It also received very broad support from the referral bodies.

The investigation that now forms the basis for the bill had a limited mandate. The directives can rightly be described as an order. It was no longer to be investigated whether it was reasonable to have anonymous witnesses or not. The order was for how a system with anonymous witnesses could be realized. This fact was noted with disapproval by several referral bodies. They also continue to be strongly critical of the content of the reform proposal.

The Government notes in the bill that a majority of the referral bodies reject it. I would like to assert that that majority consists of those who will be forced to handle the reform that there is now a risk we will adopt.

The Council on Legislation remains very critical, but also many other heavy referral bodies - Brå, Domstolsverket, Göta hovrätt, Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter, Justitiekanslern, Malmö tingsrätt, Justitieombudsmannen, Stockholms tingsrätt, Stockholms universitet, Svea hovrätt, Journalistförbundet, Advokatsamfundet, Sveriges Domareförbund, Tidningsutgivarna, Uppsala universitet, Västmanlands tingsrätt among others.

There are also some that are clearly in favor, namely the crime victim support centers and the Swedish Police Authority. Then there are agencies that object but with strongly critical comments. These include Säpo, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and the Swedish Economic Crime Authority. Centrum för rättvisa neither objects nor supports but provides a series of comments regarding issues of legal certainty. They point out that this implies a departure from Swedish procedural traditions which actualizes very difficult balancing of interests and therefore want to time-limit the current bill.

In the bill, we are only partially informed as to which referral bodies are involved and what their arguments are. However, there is some important argumentation in the bill from the referral bodies regarding what is problematic in the reform proposal itself. It concerns both practical and legal problems in the application. How should a partial disclosure proceed? How should sanctions be implemented against a witness who does not appear, as a fine, seizure, or detention? And how should the question of "ed" be formulated – not to mention the risks of potential perjury and potential proceedings because of it?

Several also problematize the relationship between the duty to testify that we actually have and the duty to prosecute that the prosecutor has. How are we to be able to perform a balancing of interests between what constitutes legal certainty for the person who is suspected or the perpetrator and what may be justified reasons for protection for a witness when we might be at the start of a process during the preliminary investigation? One might not even know who the perpetrator is. There are immense spaces for ambiguity and very difficult assessments here.

It can also be questioned how one is to manage to guarantee anonymity. It can involve processes over a long period, and it can involve litigation in several instances after appeals.

The government explicitly hopes that more people will be able and willing to testify due to the anonymity and that it will lead to more convictions. Everyone, including the government, is at the same time in complete agreement that information from an anonymous witness has a limited evidentiary value. It opens up for the risk that the witness's anonymity may contribute to an acquittal.

There is also great concern that the reform is driven by unrealistic expectations and could potentially disturb the trust in and confidence for the justice system. Witnesses might even refrain entirely if they do not feel secure in being able to obtain anonymity in the proceedings according to the rules.

In summary, I argue that this is about signal politics from the government which, at best, will lack effect but, at worst, will have the opposite effect. This, I argue, is very unnecessary. I move for the rejection of the bill, that is, approval of reservation 1.

Then I want to emphasize that we need to do much more to be able to prevent crime and gang culture. This is best done in completely different areas than crime policy, but more must also be done to protect witnesses. Therefore, I also move for approval of reservation 4 that the government should appoint an inquiry into a new special personal security program that could seriously break the culture of silence and protect witnesses and crime victims.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! To testify is a fundamental civic duty, which was mentioned here by the previous speaker. We are all obliged to appear for a hearing in a criminal case if the court calls. For the most part, it is quite undramatic, even though many experience it as uncomfortable and become a bit nervous and anxious about the attention.

Daily, witnesses stand in court and give their accounts and observations under oath without threats or pressure occurring. Our legal system has historically and by tradition been built on an open and transparent judicial process where it has been self-evident that witnesses personally appear and, in the proceedings, speak about who they are and what they have to contribute to the criminal case.

Openness constitutes an important fundamental pillar in the Instrument of Government and the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets requirements for a fair trial. A suspect or accused person shall be given the opportunity to defend themselves.

Mr. Speaker! In the best of worlds, it should also be that way. We shall continue to uphold those principles. A new and changed brutal reality, however, poses new demands.

In recent years, gang crime, organized crime, and violent extremism have taken root in our country. Criminals with significant capacity for violence control large parts of qualified crime and fundamentally constitute a threat to both individuals and the business sector and our society as a whole, and in the long run also against our democracy. Those who hold leading roles keep themselves at arm's length from those who are to perform the dirty work. One knows who they are, but it is difficult to prove the connection.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal on anonymous witnesses. The possibility of testifying anonymously constitutes an important piece of the puzzle in the objective of having the criminal leaders prosecuted and convicted.

I believe that most who are listening to this in this chamber realize that people who testify against criminals, who rule by violence and harbor a contempt for human life, literally risk their lives. And the probability that they will lose their lives is a long shot. The consequence is that no one with a self-preservation instinct steps forward and testifies. The result is silence. In these cases, no one wants to speak with either the police, the prosecutor, or the court.

Mr. Speaker! It is not unexpected that the proposal has met with criticism from various sides, as this is an unusual element in our legal order. It is, however, important to state that the European Convention on Human Rights, with its requirements for transparency, allows for exceptions if the system is designed in a way that ensures the defendant's right to an effective defense. According to my and the Christian Democrats' assessment, the government proposal is designed in such a way that it meets this requirement.

In the criticism, it has also been stated that the evidentiary value of anonymous witness statements is low. This is, of course, something that can be weighed in the court's assessment together with other evidence and evidentiary valuation. Put simply, it can be said that a witness statement with low evidentiary value is better than no witness statement at all. Therefore, one cannot ignore the fact that it will have significance. Evidentiary valuation is, as said, a matter for the court and not for us in this chamber.

Critics have also looked towards our neighboring countries, which has also been mentioned here, which have already introduced the possibility of anonymous witnesses and pointed out that the possibility is used to a very small extent. That is certainly true. My assessment, based on my previous experiences from the police, is that it will also be relevant in a few cases here.

But we have a somewhat different situation, which has also been mentioned here earlier, with a level of shootings and explosions that is unparalleled in Europe. And we also have organized crime that has established itself very quickly and has a large influence over our social life.

The possibility of anonymous testimony is also limited by the requirement that the crime must have a penalty of at least two years. Therefore, it is not the case that everyone can demand to testify anonymously. In the daily life of the courts, one will therefore continue to enter and give one's testimony completely openly.

In summary: Anonymous witnesses are something new in our legislation and an attempt to break the culture of silence that has spread. It is difficult, as has also been mentioned here, to speculate on the outcome of this, and the government will follow up on the law and its application. But we Christian Democrats welcome the bill, which will give the justice system another important tool in crime fighting.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I had not actually intended to reply. But when I heard Torsten Elofsson say that a testimony with low evidentiary value is better than nothing at all, I must nevertheless address this. I find it to be astonishing and naive. If one says that a testimony that has no evidentiary value would be better than nothing at all, one completely ignores the risks that are obvious with it being false testimony, that it is perjury committed, and that there is no possibility for the court to ask the follow-up questions that risk exposing the witness's identity.

Mr. Speaker! It is not that a piece of paper found on the ground with a testimony that cannot be assessed would be better than nothing at all, but it must, of course, be verified.

Mr. Speaker! I organized a seminar on anonymous witnesses together with the Moderate Louise Meijer a while ago. I want to remember that Torsten Elofsson was also there and listened to this. During the seminar, an example was raised that I thought was quite telling: What if we were to introduce the possibility of anonymous alibis. I suspect that Torsten Elofsson would not think that an anonymous alibi would be better than no alibi at all.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I think Rasmus Ling is downplaying this issue a bit. It is not that the government has ignored the complications that exist regarding this, but rather that a system has been built in for how this anonymity shall be handled. The court shall not know this person's true identity. It shall be known by another court, so to speak, which has decided on the need for and the right for someone to testify anonymously.

If Rasmus Ling had listened, he would have heard me say that the court might not value this testimony as highly as if the witness had appeared with their identity and been known. This does not mean that the court disregards the testimony itself, but it may have a lower evidentiary value. But taken together with other evidence, it may be that it is assigned significance.

I therefore believe that the government has very well substantiated its reasoning regarding how the process shall proceed with counsel and other matters, which I did not go into in my speech. But I assume that Rasmus Ling is well aware that this reasoning has been presented. I started from the evaluation of evidence that the court has to perform. The court performs an evaluation of evidence based on all witness statements and assesses whether the witness is credible or not. Even if the person testifying is known to the court, the witness statement may have a low evidentiary value, right, Mr. Rasmus Ling?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Naturally, a person who testifies openly may have low confidence. It is the court's task to make an assessment during the proceedings or after the proceedings are concluded and weigh everything together.

But I still turn towards the view that a low evidentiary value is better than nothing at all, when it is so purely a matter of fact that the possibility of cross-examination and asking counter-questions will be so limited. The risk then is that there will be false testimonies, but that one cannot find out who it is that is testifying and what interests exist.

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, but I regret that the Christian Democrats have concluded that this is a good idea.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What I said was that the alternative to anonymous witnesses is total silence and that no testimony is received at all if a person risks their own life to take the witness stand. In that case, the witness says nothing. I even believe that a person can be prepared to risk perjury to remain silent through a trial. In that case, it is not the first time that it happens. I believe that one must take into account the risk that this person is exposed to and protect this person who actually wants to help get a leading figure within organized crime convicted. The person may be a defector who wants to come forward and set things right. In that case, I think that even Rasmus Ling should respect this position and also respect the risk that this person exposes themselves to in order to benefit a fair trial and a proper treatment.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden today has a severe organized crime on the advance, with deadly shootings and explosions as its worst consequences. Organized crime has moved from trade in drugs and weapons to also handling black labor, trafficking, fraud against both the welfare system, companies and individuals, waste crime and illegal gambling. We also see signs of infiltration, corruption and illicit pressure regarding both authorities and companies.

From the public side, we need to act powerfully. We need to give the justice system and also other parts of society the right tools and resources to both prevent and combat this. At the same time, we need to manage crimes of mass scale and violence against children and women, as well as have a police presence throughout the country. It does not suit us as a state to have lower ambitions than that.

We in Centerpartiet have been for harsher penalties for weapons crimes and for the introduction of preventive coercive measures and stay bans. We have also stood behind the historically large resource increases to the entire justice system and view an increased use of, among other things, cameras positively. We are, in short, for effective tools that solve the problems we have.

Mr. Speaker! Testimony from persons who have seen or know things is often an important part of the evidence in criminal cases. It is a major obstacle and problem if there is a culture of silence that makes persons hesitate or refuse to testify due to fear or anxiety, regardless of whether it is justified to feel that way or not. Breaking the culture of silence and getting more people to feel safe testifying is very important. Therefore, it is crucial to have effective and legally secure tools and methods to achieve this.

The Government, the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats are now proposing an introduction of anonymous witnesses. The Council on Legislation and a large number of referral bodies are critical of the proposal. It is said that a trial according to the Instrument of Government shall be conducted fairly, a concept that encompasses the fundamental principles of legal certainty that the proceedings shall be objective and adversarial, and that the parties shall be equal in the process. The Council on Legislation considers that there are reasons for strong principled concerns against the proposal from a legal certainty perspective.

It is however considered that the proposed regulation can nevertheless be deemed acceptable and compatible with the Swedish legal system. We note this, but it only applies if the starting point is that the anonymous witness statements are assigned a very low evidentiary value. The reason for the very low evidentiary value in an anonymous witness statement is that it is decisive that the witness states who they are, what the relationship to the victim, the suspect or the accused looks like, as well as what the witness has seen or knows, as well as other circumstances.

All of this is about being able to assess the witness's credibility and reliability and thereby correctly be able to determine the evidentiary value of the witness testimony. Without knowing the witness's identity and other circumstances, this is largely impossible. The Government, however, states the following in the report on the consequences of the proposal:

The proposals are judged to provide the law enforcement authorities with more effective tools to investigate crimes and break the culture of silence surrounding the criminal networks. The possibility of remaining anonymous in a legal process linked to conflicts within and between criminal networks is judged to increase witnesses' willingness to participate in a legal process. This is expected to contribute to more crimes being solved and more perpetrators being convicted of serious crimes.

That is what the government writes. But the government states in the same bill that it is not appropriate and that it will not be relevant for persons who have a close relationship with the accused to testify anonymously. This should mean that members in the same criminal network will not be allowed to testify anonymously against each other. Nor will relatives of either the victim or the suspects be allowed to do so. It is difficult to understand how the proposal will break the culture of silence within criminal networks when the government itself says that the law should not cover these groups.

Instead, it will be the so-called incidental witnesses who can be granted anonymity. It is therefore about persons who in no way have been involved but by chance have happened to witness a crime. Despite the fact that quite a few requirements must be met for a decision on anonymity to be granted, the fact remains that these many times very valuable witnesses lose most of their evidentiary value when they become anonymous. Valuable witnesses become almost worthless through anonymity. With an incidental witness, who could have contributed to a conviction if the person had testified openly, the anonymity can result in an acquittal.

The government further states in its consequence assessment that the number of granted cases is judged to be few with the design that the regulation is proposed to have. It concerns only a limited number of cases annually, which we have also seen from our Nordic neighboring countries. That these anonymous witnesses should have the deterrent effect on crime that is stated can almost be considered unreasonable, but it will with great probability create a large expectation among witnesses, and above all among the police, prosecutors, and courts, that they should be able to provide them with an opportunity that does not exist.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party is for increased support for and protection of witnesses. We are open to harsher penalties for offenses in legal proceedings and perjury. We are for increased use of crown witnesses, and we see, as said, positively on many of the proposals that have been submitted or are expected to come within criminal policy with increased technical evidence, such as wiretapping, cameras, DNA evidence and other.

We are, however, not ready to compromise on legal certainty and have a law in place that will be used very rarely and which, when it is used, will lead to a very low evidentiary value - and this at the same time as there is a risk that many other valuable witnesses will be so disappointed by not being covered by the law that they will choose not to testify at all. This means that the proposed law ultimately entails a risk that it will not result in more people testifying, but instead fewer.

In summary, we believe that the introduction of anonymous witnesses is not an effective piece of legislation against serious organized crime. We move for approval of reservation 1, which entails a rejection of the proposal to introduce anonymous witnesses.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Act on anonymous witnesses in criminal cases is about strengthening the protection for witnesses to serious crimes. It is about witnesses who have the civil courage—who have the strength, the will, and the energy—to, despite threats and perhaps even violence, help the justice system ensure that guilty persons can be convicted in court. The Act shall exist so that those who testify can, hopefully, be able to tell what they know or what they have seen without being subjected to reprisals, threats, or violence directed against themselves or their relatives.

Both the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Prosecution Authority have stated that they see problems with conducting preliminary investigations where witnesses are intimidated into silence. Thus, we politicians have two paths to take: Either we do something about this, or we sit in silence, close our eyes, and hold our ears and hope that everything resolves itself anyway. I do not want to be such a politician, in any case. I want to see differences, I want to see improvements, and I want to see solutions.

Then we come to what we are debating today, namely whether anonymous witnesses are the solution to the problem we see. I do not know that, and I do not think that anyone else in here knows it either. But hopefully, this is one of the pieces of the puzzle that the justice system needs to better be able to solve precisely serious crimes and hopefully also obtain convictions in court. As an individual law, this is hardly something that will solve the problems, as I said earlier, but I do not think that any of us in here have claimed that either.

I know that there are referral bodies that are negative towards this. They fear that legal certainty will be set aside. I understand the criticism and see the concern, but I do not share it. I feel secure that we have competent prosecutors who can assess the significance of the evidence and its credibility. I also have confidence that our courts can make these assessments.

I realize that the evidentiary value of an anonymous witness is lower than if the witness had not been anonymous. But as the Christian Democratic member just said: If the alternative is that we have no witness at all, it must still be better to have a witness who speaks, even if the evidentiary value is low.

We have also heard others say that there is a difference between a witness in a court hearing and a witness in a preliminary investigation. If a murder occurs and the police know nothing, but someone calls and says they know who is guilty. Well, says the police, can you tell us? No, I don't intend to do that, says the person in question, because I don't dare and will be affected myself in that case. If one then promises anonymity, perhaps one might get a name. From there, one can then work further. In my world, this is good.

I know that there is a different view on the issue in other parties. They would rather see personal protection for threatened witnesses as an alternative. But that does not solve the problem. The witness will still be under threat and have to live with worry and fear day and night and wonder if it is this night that their house or apartment is blown up. I can assure you that it is not fun to live under such a threat. A witness will not think so either.

Today, it is a civic duty to testify, but I mean that society is also obligated to be able to protect a witness.

Now we introduce this law, and then we will see how it will be used and what results it yields. I stand behind the bill, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a very short and simple question for Martin Melin. We just heard the arguments, and I have previously seen joint press conferences and the like. But I wonder what position the Liberals as a party have regarding anonymous witnesses at trials. I have understood that one is for it in order to move investigations forward, but what position has the party adopted regarding anonymity at trials?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the question. We have a decision from our national convention to support anonymous witnesses. It was very close. Just as the Social Democrats, we had internal discussions about the pros and cons.

Development in society is moving at rocket speed. We see that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the justice system - police and prosecutors - to conduct investigations because the violence capital has increased enormously in these groups. Today, they shy away from no means. It is a development that we have seen only during the last two, three, four years.

We have, as we have said, had a debate. It was not easy. We have talked about pros and cons, and we have several prosecutors and police officers in the party who have shared their opinions and viewpoints. After we saw the investigation that forms the basis for this proposition – there was also an investigation in 2021, and there are also older investigations – and as it is designed, we have decided to stand behind it, which we do today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is completely true that the development in this area has been negative and that there is every reason to work so that witnesses overall shall receive significantly better protection than what is available today. I hope and assume that both Martin Melin and the government think so. Regardless of what we think this will lead to, this will, despite everything, affect only a few. The large number of witnesses will also in the future be able to testify openly and will need greater protection from the justice system than what is the case today.

Mr. Speaker! I will not be long-winded. We have had a discussion. I regret that the minority within the Liberals was not heard. But say what you will about the Liberals, our parties are still sometimes similar in that regard, as we often have transparent discussions and one can follow what different representatives think and believe. I believe that it benefits democracy in several different ways.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have nothing more to add.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now the parties in the Riksdag have, through their representatives in the Committee on Justice, accounted for their positions on the proposal to introduce anonymous witnesses in Swedish law. As the final speaker, I will in my contribution account for why I and the Miljöpartiet say no to the proposal. I move for the proposal in the committee report to be rejected and for reservation 1 to be approved.

The government has argued that this is a pattern-breaking measure that is needed because gang crime has become such a serious societal problem as it de facto is. But at the same time, it states in the bill that the assessment is that anonymous witnesses will be used extremely sparingly.

From our neighboring countries, which have had this since different points in time, we know that it is not used particularly often. In Norway, it has been used in zero cases, according to what the jurists there can remember. In Finland, it has been used on one occasion. Then it concerned war crimes in Iraq or Syria. In Denmark, it has been used on a couple of occasions.

The question is, Mr. Speaker, what is pattern-breaking. I am afraid that it is not the worrying pattern of getting people to testify, but what is pattern-breaking is that it deviates from a fundamental order in Swedish law but without having any obvious advantages.

Mr. Speaker! One could argue that even if it were not used in particularly many cases, it could be helpful in a single case. And if it is only in one case, it is still worth all of this. I have had discussions with representatives who are positive towards the proposal who have argued as follows: one case is enough for it to be worth it. But then one ignores the risks that exist.

With this change, the risk is great that if the possibility to testify anonymously is granted for one or some, it will create expectations among the large mass to be able to use this legally. It is not I who am making this up, but the Council on Legislation, among others, warns against it, but also many others. If the possibility exists for some, everyone will want to have it, because it is never convenient to testify, not even in simple cases. Many times it is dangerous. There is no reason whatsoever to neglect that. This will concern very few cases, and the vast majority will also in the future need to testify openly. It cannot be overemphasized that much more needs to be done to strengthen the protection for them.

The question is also, Mr. Speaker, what use an anonymous testimony provides. The construction that has been chosen, that is, that the court's judges and lay judges will not know who is testifying, is good in the sense that it becomes fair during the trial because the defense and those who are to judge have the same information, but it also makes the value very limited.

I am afraid that what several have raised in the debate—that evidence of little value is better than none—is completely wrong. One then ignores the risk that it could be a false testimony and thus becomes a false lead instead of a small evidentiary value. That, Mr. Speaker, is a risk that in that case jeopardizes legal certainty.

Mr. Speaker! One aspect that I think has been discussed too little overall is what happens in cases where a witness has been granted anonymity but the anonymity is subsequently breached. If we are to see such cases ahead, where someone who has received the state's guarantee to remain anonymous is then subjected to a retaliatory action, what will the accountability look like? What will it do to the trust in the justice system? These are questions, Mr. Speaker, that have not received any answers and which have been highlighted to all too little extent.

Anonymous witnesses

Mr. Speaker! I will not go into too much detail regarding the preparation of this matter, but since I am standing here in the speaker's chair anyway, I can take the opportunity to complain that the referral period was too short and that the number of referral bodies was too small. It was far too tight.

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Council on Legislation rejects the entire proposal. The Council on Legislation assumes that the evidentiary value of an anonymous witness statement will be extremely low. If it is, on the other hand, valued highly, it will instead become a threat to legal certainty. The Council on Legislation also points out that the expectations from the general public will be quite large regarding this reform and the opportunities it will provide.

Mr. Speaker! Much is said, however, that this proposal will cause harm and that the profit will be none at all or very limited. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Riksdag should reject the bill. I move for approval of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 November.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)