A more legally secure and efficient court process

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report, A more legally secure and efficient court process. The Committee stands behind the government's proposals for amendments. The proposals aim to strengthen legal certainty, increase the efficiency of the court process, and at the same time reduce the strain on crime victims and witnesses who participate in a legal process. These are important changes in a time when we need a justice system that both maintains high quality and functions in practice.

The changes mean, among other things, that accounts provided during early interrogations and witness statements shall be admissible as evidence in criminal cases to a greater extent than today. This means that what a person said early in an investigation, for example in a police interrogation, can more often be used as evidence in the trial without the person always needing to be heard again in court. In practice, early interrogations can be played back or read out in court. The need for physical presence for witnesses and the complainant decreases in many cases, and the risk of accounts changing over time also decreases. Overall, this leads to faster, more structured, and more efficient trials.

The reforms also involve a clear change in how audio and video recordings from interrogations may be used in criminal cases. Recorded interrogations, especially from early police interrogations, will now be allowed to be used as evidence to a greater extent. The court will be able to play back recordings to a greater degree instead of conducting new oral interrogations with the same person.

This is an important development. It strengthens the evidence because it is closer in time to the event, which reduces the risk of memory changes and uncertainty. At the same time, it reduces the burden on crime victims and witnesses, who do not need to repeat their story time and again. This, in turn, contributes to a more efficient and coherent process.

I also want to point out that a new confidentiality provision is being introduced to protect information regarding coercive measures at the Courts Administration. Information on coercive measures will be covered by stronger confidentiality, which means that they can be disclosed to a lesser extent. It is an important change and a reinforcement of the protection for sensitive information. It reduces the risk of information being spread and harming ongoing criminal investigations, for example by suspects obtaining knowledge of measures in advance. At the same time, it strengthens the protection of individuals' privacy and gives the justice system better conditions to work effectively and undisturbed.

Mr. Speaker! It is positive that there is broad political support for these reforms. It shows that there is a broad common insight that the justice system must function both in a legally secure and efficient manner, not just in theory but also in practice.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 1, from Vänsterpartiet.

I can largely agree with the previous speaker. I want to assert that we from this speaking platform often argue how important the work of the police and the prosecutor is, as well as that it is important to obtain material in order to be able to conduct a process. What we are talking about now is largely how the process should function.

There are only half as many speakers who have registered for this point as for the previous one. I think we should care even much more about what happens in the courts and the importance the rules there have for achieving functioning, legally secure, and materially secure judgments.

We from Vänsterpartiet have no objections at all to disturbing the so-called confidence provisions. We also like the new confidentiality rules, which in many ways can secure and help carry forward the process in a well-considered manner.

I do, however, have objections when it comes to the early accounts and to what extent they should be allowed to be used. It is an old principle from the 1940s that we safeguard a principle of immediacy in court. It was argued that most, in principle almost everything, should be presented in the main hearing and that, based on that hearing, a fair and reliable assessment of evidence should be able to be made.

The change came, as I just mentioned, in the 40s. Then, the importance of having both free evidence, meaning that no rules should apply as limits there, and free evaluation of evidence from the court's side, meaning no rules on what should apply for full evidence or anything similar, was marked. It was also marked then that the principles at the main hearing should be orality, immediacy, and concentration. A case should be decided at a main hearing, and the court should in principle only be allowed to base its judgment on what had emerged in that main hearing.

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle in Swedish law. We mention it and have some rules around the edges of it. Otherwise, we can lean on the European Convention, where there is an important paragraph on "fair trial". We may interpret what should be included in the specifications we make in Swedish law.

In accordance with the principle of a fair trial, the taking of evidence should, to the greatest extent possible, take place in the main hearing. That the taking of evidence is postponed to the preliminary investigation can be important in some cases but is problematic in others. The Council on Legislation has advised against us changing this presumption; it is argued that what we have done previously is sufficient and that we should not do anything further.

The investigation underlying this claims that one should limit this and stick to what applies today. The Council on Legislation noted, as I said, that such an amendment should not be made, and several referral bodies have supported that. When the government marks that the amendment would need to be made, the arguments are rejected.

What has been invoked includes, among other things, requirements from the Prosecution Authority. In some cases, it has caused problems that the possibility of using previous material in a court process has been restricted. This has resulted in the judges several times giving preliminary notices that subsequently do not hold true, which has led to complications in the planning of the processes and sometimes cancelled main hearings. It is naturally not successful.

The question then is whether we should go even further in that direction. I do not think so. Such problems of a practical nature should be able to be solved through better planning and foresight from the court's side and cooperation with the prosecutor. We in Vänsterpartiet therefore believe that the Riksdag should reject the proposal in the part concerning a change of the principle of immediacy when it comes to so-called early interrogations. In other respects, we stand behind the proposals in the proposition.

Something that I find very interesting is this matter of the trust paragraphs and the trust rules. They are very complicated to apply, according to my experience from the court. These rules target situations where, during the main hearing in the District Court, one has held an interrogation before the court or, in some cases, at a viewing. What was decisive when the judgment was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal – or eventually the Supreme Court, if that was applicable – was the trust in the evidence. It is about a weighing of witness statements and evidence from a trust perspective, and it is not so simple. If the District Court's judgment were to be changed, were the rules such that one was not allowed to do so without the trust evidence being presented again through an audio or video recording or being taken again in the Court of Appeal – or the Supreme Court, if it advanced that far. Some exceptions could be made even there, but it was quite complicated.

A risk that exists regarding this matter of credibility witnesses – and even more if we were to rely heavily on early interrogations – is that if one is summoned to be heard in a court of appeal or a higher instance, the witness or the victim focuses more on what was said in previous proceedings than on what actually happened. To that is added the risk that witnesses and others who are heard are subjected to pressure or threats after the interrogation in the district court. This matter of credibility evidence and credibility assessment should therefore be removed.

In summary, we are therefore in agreement with the majority on a majority of issues, but not on the one concerning early evidence collection, which we do not think should be expanded.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! The starting point in this bill is actually quite simple. In a legal process, we should take advantage of what is most reliable – that which is said close to the event, before memories fade and information risks being influenced. But that is not always the case today. Our perception is that early interrogations are used to an all too small extent. It is what we now want to change.

Madam Speaker! Imagine that a witness is heard the day after an incident and that the witness statement is recorded with audio and video. The information documented is fresh and detailed. Months later, the same person is called to court. The memories may be weaker and the formulations somewhat more cautious. Sometimes there has been external influence that may have altered the memories – in the worst case, threats. Nevertheless, the later interrogation is given the greatest weight. It is not, Madam Speaker, a self-evident fact that this leads to better decisions. This is what we want to change.

Early interrogations shall be able to be used to a greater extent if it is not deemed inappropriate. The starting point shall be that what is said early in a preliminary investigation can also be used as evidence in a court. Interrogations that are recorded shall, according to the norm, be able to be used as evidence. This is an important change, not least because we know that information can change over time and that in some cases, pressure is exerted on witnesses.

Madam Speaker! The same thought recurs when it comes to witness statements. Today, written accounts are rarely used in criminal cases, because in practice it is required that the parties agree for them to be used. This means that information that is already documented is not taken into account. When the police, for example, record early witness interviews, it is required that the suspect gives consent for them to be used. It is thus in many cases today in such a way that it is the suspect who decides whether the police's notes may be used.

It is a strange arrangement. Now we are changing it so that it is instead the court that shall examine whether it is appropriate to use such a recorded account. This makes it possible in more cases to use relevant information without requiring that everything must be repeated orally. At the same time, the responsibility lies with the court to determine when it can occur in a legally secure manner.

Madam Speaker! Even in the Court of Appeal, it is a matter of making better use of what already exists. We are now removing the provisions on deference and giving the Court of Appeal greater opportunity to independently assess the evidence without being bound by how it was presented and interpreted in the District Court. By limiting the need for new evidence collection, we avoid retrials that result in the evidence becoming weaker rather than stronger more often. This contributes to a more purposeful review.

Madam Speaker! Legal certainty is not determined by how many times a statement is repeated, but by how reliable the statement is. The court conducts its examination. The defendant has the right to rebut the evidence, and every statement needs to be evaluated critically.

But legal certainty is also about the quality of the underlying material. Using early documented information to a greater extent often means that the court receives a better basis for decision-making while there are clear frameworks. The court must always examine the suitability and weigh in the possibility of an effective defense. It is an important principle.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just about an efficient court process – it is also about people. It is about witnesses who have experienced and been involved in difficult processes. They should not have to recount the incident multiple times, as it means a strain many times over. By using what has already been documented to a greater extent, we reduce the need to let witnesses repeat their testimonies and repeatedly relive the same thing. This means less of a burden but also greater security. We also know that there are attempts to influence witnesses. This is part of managing that.

When a statement is secured early, the risk of it being changed retroactively is reduced. It strengthens both the evidence and the protection for the individual.

When it comes to the protection of the individual, the same logic applies regarding the protection of information concerning coercive measures. Today, it is not about us providing new tools, but about ensuring that the secret coercive measures, the tools and the methods that already exist today are not cleared away.

When information about coercive measures is disseminated, it can weaken law enforcement. This can be the consequence when we provide information on how the police use these tools. Therefore, we are now introducing clearer confidentiality protections at Domstolsverket.

Madam Speaker! This is fundamentally about letting the legal process be based on the best evidence – the evidence that the court judges to be the best – and building a system that takes advantage of it instead of weakening it over time. It is about being able to use what is said early on to a greater extent, simplifying what is today unnecessarily heavy, and protecting the people who participate in the process.

With this, Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report titled A more legally secure and efficient court process. I intended to focus mostly on the so-called principle of immediacy, which was mentioned from this rostrum earlier.

The principle of immediacy is something that for a long time has been a fundamental legal principle in Swedish procedural law. The principle means that the court may only base its judgment on the material presented directly at the main hearing. This means that evidence, witness statements, and interrogations shall be presented orally before the court. For the most part, it has functioned well, but in recent years – I speak from my own experience – it has become increasingly common for witnesses and even victims to change information they provided in interrogations during the preliminary investigation which then forms the basis for the prosecutor's indictment.

It can be assumed on good grounds that witnesses have then been subjected to threats or undue influence by the suspect or by others who have an interest in the matter not coming to light in the right light, and that the accused is acquitted on that ground because the evidence presented does not constitute sufficient grounds for a conviction – this despite it being obvious to both the prosecutor and the police, and perhaps also to the court, that the story has been changed or that witnesses have been silenced for fear of reprisals. But with the prevailing principle of immediacy, the court has no other choice than to issue an acquittal.

Madam Speaker! It is evident that a judicial process based on the principle of immediacy exhibits weaknesses and that the world has changed since the principle was introduced in the 1940s. There are weaknesses and deficiencies regarding both efficiency and legal certainty. The problem has been noted, and in 2022, the possibility was introduced to invoke interrogations documented through audio and video recording as evidence, provided it was not deemed obviously inappropriate. This means, in short, that an account provided in a police interrogation was deemed capable of providing more reliable evidence and better conditions for materially correct judgments.

Threats from an early interrogation are considered to be more reliable because they were provided at an early stage of the investigation and the person heard was then less influenced by external factors.

Madam Speaker! After a few years, it can nevertheless be stated that the change of separate grounds did not turn out quite as one had imagined. The requirement for the defendant's right to cross-examination has prolonged the proceedings, and the courts issue unclear decisions on which evidence shall or can be permitted, to mention a few examples of such things that are considered to be an obstacle in the current order.

Therefore, a change is now proposed which means that a narrative provided during an interrogation before a law enforcement authority and documented through audio and video recording shall be admissible as evidence in a criminal trial if it is not deemed inappropriate. An assessment shall therefore also continue to be made as to whether it can be used or not.

If this is implemented, we see that there are a number of significant advantages with the possibility of invoking previous interrogations as evidence. Previous interrogations should therefore be used to the greatest extent possible, but obviously with regard to legitimate legal certainty claims for the defendant. It is very important to emphasize this.

Madam Speaker! In order for the regulation of early interrogations to become more effective, the investigation considers that it is required, on the one hand, that the parties, and primarily the prosecutors, invoke early interrogations to a greater extent, and on the other hand, that the police and prosecutors enable the suspect to conduct cross-examinations already during the preliminary investigation. If cross-examinations are held already during the preliminary investigation, the need to invoke a supplementary interrogation in court is reduced. The efficiency gains that the reform aims to achieve are realized thereby.

Madam Speaker! In summary, this means that an early interrogation shall be permitted as evidence unless the court, based on what the parties have submitted, makes the assessment that there are significant procedural disadvantages to the evidence being presented in that manner. This may involve both procedural economy reasons and aspects of legal certainty.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

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