Procedural law issues

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report Procedural Law Issues in connection with the motions raised during the general motion period in the area of procedural law.

Procedural law is as complicated as much other law. Central to procedural law is the Code of Judicial Procedure, which consists of 800 paragraphs. In addition, there are a number of special laws that contain procedural law regulations. This concerns coercive measures during the preliminary investigation, issues of prosecution, evaluation of evidence, legal aid, and so on.

Changes in this area are needed. But it must happen gently and thoughtfully and be investigated thoroughly. At the same time, it is important to change parts of this legislation, for several reasons. One reason is the serious organized crime and to improve the possibilities to combat it.

Today, new statistics arrived from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council. Gangster murders with firearms continue to increase. Over ten years, the increase is almost 200 percent. Last year, at least four bystanders were killed by mistake. Even more innocent people were seriously injured.

Madam Speaker! One of many honest citizens who have fallen victim to gang violence is Fredrik Andersson. Fredrik was a 55-year-old father who, on a Monday, was training at his gym when a pistol-armed gang member entered the premises to shoot a person from a rival network. Fredrik then showed great courage and confronted the man in order to prevent the shooting. Instead, Fredrik was shot dead. I want to mention his name here in the chamber today to honor Fredrik Andersson and to remind of how gang violence has deadly consequences for honest and upright people.

Too many honest and innocent people have died in shootings and bombings. Even more have been seriously injured, frightened, or traumatized. The gang criminals are totally ruthless, and this deadly violence is furthermore only the ultimate form of a much more widespread criminality - a criminality that is a threat to the system. Municipalities, authorities, and even political organizations are being extorted, infiltrated, and subjected to undue influence. Our free and open society is threatened, and we must understand what those words really mean.

In the gangs' field of influence, a dangerous culture of silence arises. People refrain from speaking to the police or do not dare to testify because they are afraid of suffering consequences. The gang criminals are to be regarded as domestic terrorists. At the same time, it is important to find a reasonable balance, a equilibrium, between on one hand effective crime fighting and on the other hand respect for the fundamental right to protection of private and family life. However, there should be no doubt that the weight between effective crime fighting and personal integrity has shifted. It is because of the societal development.

Most of the motions currently being discussed are already subject to investigation or preparation in the Government Offices. There is also a comprehensive and ambitious agreement in the Tidö Agreement regarding further investigations and legislative changes concerning the motions that have been submitted. Investigations regarding camera surveillance, secret coercive measures, strengthening the judicial system, an overall increased focus on crime victims and the protection needs of society have been commissioned, and several are underway. The legislation will be changed in a comprehensive way. I believe it would be unwise to preempt this extensive work, and with reference to the ongoing and planned work, it is wise to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and reject all the motions.

It should be pointed out in this context that the legislative changes currently taking place have precedents in other countries, not least internationally in our Nordic neighboring countries, and also in parts of our own legislation. It is crucial that these various measures are designed in a concrete and wise manner so that we safeguard the rule of law. We do this, for example, by ensuring that decisions on secret coercive measures are made by a court and that the individual's privacy interests are monitored by special representatives. To re-establish legal security is the goal of the government's work. To defend the free and open society is the starting point.

Madam Speaker! I wish to conclude my speech with these words by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all motion requests.

(Applause)

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have a number of reservations in this report - six of them - but for the sake of time, we choose to only demand reservation 2, which concerns the permit requirement for municipalities. I intend to return to that.

Today we are talking about procedural law. The function itself is that there must be a routine in place so that the principles and intentions of criminal law shall determine what is right and wrong. One must get, and it shall become, right in the end. It is thus a particularly crucial part of the Swedish rule of law.

In the report is the main part - as usual, I was about to say - what the opposition and government partners agree on. It is nothing strange, but I still want to point out a few things that we have slightly different views on. We Social Democrats, for example, have chosen to leave a reservation regarding secret coercive measures.

The Social Democrats' view is that the police and the prosecution authority have been given completely different conditions to operate in recent years. They have been given tools they did not have before. If one is to be honest, the police have received all the tools they have pointed out. This has also been combined with a 50 percent resource increase, and I believe that from the political side, we expect results and delivery of the major investments.

In our reservation, we Social Democrats write that the police shall be given increased opportunities to use secret coercive measures in order to prevent and uncover serious crime. We want them to be able to be used for more crimes than is the case today – but we do not take this position lightly. It is difficult to make trade-offs. Sweden may have extremely serious problems with serious crime, and it is the duty of politics to meet it, but at the same time, one must ensure the right to personal integrity. This must be weighed in every individual decision regarding additional coercive measures, for example, more cameras and other measures. There are a couple of repressive proposals on the table even today.

Sometimes, from a political standpoint, one simply needs to take a step back, take a few deep breaths – "box breathing" they call it nowadays – and consider whether proportionality is actually in place. Now, it is escalating, and all of us in this room from left to right are partly complicit in this. We must reflect on every single case.

Another issue that the Social Democrats have a different opinion on concerns seizure. Many times, the status that comes with the items one can buy with proceeds from crime is part of the motivation and what drives the crime, apart from the fact that it can also be a way to launder money.

Our former Minister for Justice, Anders Ygeman's favorite story is about when new legislation had come into place and a group of fairly heavily burdened individuals went to Arlanda to take a charter trip. They had their fine watches with them and their luxury cars in the parking lot. The police stood and waited for them with the new legislation behind them and took everything they had: the watches, the fine designer bags - everything. They had to take the subway home. There was no charter trip.

That is how legislation is when it is at its best. One might think it is a slapstick story, but at its core, it is naturally serious. Being able to go after the money and the proceeds of crime is a decisive factor, and the research is unambiguous internationally that this is a successful concept for tackling serious, organized crime.

The Social Democrats want the government to promptly return to the Riksdag with a bill that means criminals' property can be seized even if it cannot be linked to a specific crime, which is not the case today. It is a position that we have pushed for previously as well.

I move on to the topic of strengthening the justice system. If there is one thing that has been the hallmark of the Social Democrats in government, it is that we have been forced to invest enormous resources—which we would rather have invested in elderly care, schools, and infrastructure—in what are sometimes called hard areas, in this case the justice system and its resources. If we had the power in this country, which we, as we know, do not have now, we would have invested in it. Instead, we are doing it in opposition.

We have set new goals for growth. In connection with the horrific terrorist attack on Drottninggatan, the government went out and promised growth with 10,000 new police officers by 2024. In February, the police submitted a report showing that they will achieve it. We set the goal, and we built two new schools. Among other things, right here in beloved Borås, a new police academy was established, which is a success. But we have also provided resources to the entire justice chain, as well as we could. There are still many very large challenges, not least in the area of correctional services, which everyone in the committee is well aware of and which we must move forward with in different ways together.

Our new goals are set even higher. We said during the election campaign that we would reach the European average when it comes to the number of police employees. Among the first 10,000, there was a slightly too large proportion of civilian employees, who were however needed as many of their specialist skills had been missing within the Police Authority until then.

Our goal is that before 2032 there should be 50,000 employees, of which at least 35,000 are police officers, in order to meet what Lars described here earlier regarding the crime prevention work and to deploy police in the local areas.

I move on to what we will move for approval during the vote next week, namely the permit requirement for municipalities. Today we have shifted the positions there as well. In 2018, a new camera surveillance law was introduced, which meant that the regulatory framework was loosened. In 2020, the Swedish Security Service, the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Customs Service, and the Swedish Coast Guard were given the opportunity to install cameras without a permit if so required. A little later in 2020, in August, another law was introduced which meant that it became easier to install cameras in public transport, at pharmacies, and at airports.

We want, with the submitted proposal, that municipalities should be given the opportunity to install cameras for crime prevention purposes in a much simpler way than today. Previously, we did not have full evidence for this in the research. At that time, there were investigations and studies that showed it had a great significance, for example in parking lots, but not as great a significance in other places.

Brå conducted a large meta-study in 2018 which showed a strong crime-preventive effect, especially if real-time camera surveillance is combined with other police interventions. It becomes an incredibly powerful tool for preventing crime.

Even here, one must naturally take privacy issues into account. We have not been particularly positive about installing cameras in, for example, swimming pools or schools. There, one needs to review and evaluate the privacy issues in a completely different way.

When it comes to tackling open drug sales and property crimes, for example crimes against vehicles, where we know that camera surveillance has evidence and works, we have said that we shall proceed with that. We will vote on this next week.

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

Pontus Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation number 8 from the Sverigedemokraterna regarding witness protection.

When I stood here exactly one year ago and debated procedural law issues, I raised several issues that we pushed for then and which today are part of the Tidö Agreement. We can observe that the Sweden Democrats have had large parts of their policy in the area pushed through, which will be to great benefit for the Swedish people.

Safety was one of the most important issues of the election, and through the Tidö Agreement, the coalition parties will ensure that several important measures are implemented that ensure criminals are kept off the streets longer and that the law enforcement authorities receive the tools required to both expose and convict criminals.

One of the proposals that I then raised was the issue of anonymous witnesses. At that time, it was the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats who were in favor of an introduction, but in connection with the Tidö Agreement, the Liberals also jumped on board. The measure is requested by both prosecutors and the police and will undoubtedly result in more people daring to testify than today, which is one of the most important measures in the fight to have more gang criminals convicted.

Madam Speaker! For almost ten years, the Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag have advocated for the proposal of a crown witness system in Sweden, and in July 2022 it became a reality. The crown witness system means that if one, as a suspect or the accused, cooperates in the investigation of someone else's crime, one can obtain a more lenient sentence. The information one provides must be of essential importance and is no guarantee that one will receive a reduction in sentence.

However, this will mean that witness protection needs to be further strengthened. In reservation number 8, we mention precisely that the introduction of a crown witness system will mean that higher requirements must be placed on witness protection and that an investigation should therefore review how witness protection can be improved.

Threats against witnesses are common in gang environments, and on several occasions, threats have also been carried out. In 2018, for example, a 40-year-old man and his wife were killed after the man had told what he saw in an interrogation. The need for stronger witness protection is therefore hardly a new phenomenon.

We mean that in Sweden, not enough is being done to protect witnesses. In the reservation, we state that there should be a group within that part of the police that is focused on serious organized crime which is specially trained for exactly witness protection and which is given an overall responsibility in such a process. The government should therefore promptly return to the Riksdag with a legislative proposal that fulfills this.

Safety is our time's great freedom policy issue. That is why large parts of the Tidö Agreement concern the type of questions that will be important to take Sweden out of the criminal policy crisis we find ourselves in. Denmark began this work over ten years ago but is still not finished. The advantage for us is that we can be inspired and draw lessons from what has worked better or worse in other parts of the world and adapt the measures to Swedish conditions.

Between 2014 and 2022, the number of fatal shootings in Sweden increased from 19 to 63, an increase of 232 percent. This is what the Sverigedemokraterna and the new government have to base their actions on when we design the laws that shall make Sweden a safer country.

The Sweden Democrats have warned about this development for a long time, and now the first measures that we have long demanded are being implemented. Reversing the development will take time, but we have initiated the work and are pushing for as much as possible to be implemented as soon as possible. The paradigm shift has begun, Madam Speaker.

I move for approval of reservation number 8.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of two reservations, partly reservation 9 on witness protection etc., and partly reservation 13 on the right to a victim's counsel.

I will have a somewhat different approach to these issues and not focus solely on the dramatic development of gang crime but look at it more broadly. It is partly because I both live in and represent Västerbotten and Umeå, where we do not have this problem as closely as one does in the large cities. I believe that we must have more than one perspective in mind when we work with the fundamentally criminal policy issues.

When it comes to procedural law, one can view it from a perpetrator's perspective or from a crime victim's perspective. I choose the latter.

Something that comes into focus is whether I will report a crime that I perceive I have been subjected to. This is naturally influenced by whether it is a crime of a lesser nature or a serious crime, where large material values may have been lost or where I personally or someone in my vicinity has been seriously harmed.

Are there risks of repetition? Who is the suspect? Is it a stranger or someone who is close to me and whom I might even be dependent on? Are there risks of escalation and repetition, as is the case with violence in close relationships and men's violence against women and children?

If I dare and want to report, what will happen with my report will depend on some procedural rules. In the worst case, it could become a direct dismissal; the police then do not even initiate an investigation. In that case, it must be a question of the category of less serious crimes. But it is also a betrayal of the person who perhaps experiences a major violation and has been subjected to it. One can also limit the preliminary investigation, so that only certain reported crimes become subjects of investigation. The State invokes procedural economic arguments to make this limitation and only bring up certain crimes. It can also be a question of a decision not to prosecute. You probably guess what that is about. It means that one waives prosecution even if there might be a preliminary investigation pointing towards something having happened. These questions are subjects of investigation now, and an investigation that has been submitted is out for consultation. We therefore have reason to return to this and see if we agree with the investigation and if any change should be made.

In more serious crimes, other questions will arise, especially if it is a matter of personal conflicts. Will I be believed? Or will I be questioned? Yes, reasonably I will be, because the police and the prosecutor must try to investigate the case with the help of counter-questions and argumentation to arrive at something that is not one hundred percent the victim's story.

Here, it will be very much about the treatment. Can I continue to have contact with the police and prosecutors? Will I be able to live up to what is termed the ideal victim within criminology? It was Nils Christie, the well-known criminologist from Norway, who established the concept of the ideal victim. For it to hold true, we must be somewhat in harmony with society's values. A "real" victim, an ideal victim who becomes worthy of investment, is perceived as weak and respectable in the situation where the crime occurred. The perpetrator must appear superior and calculating, and they must be unknown to each other. Here we get complications that have long clouded the picture, especially when it comes to abuse in close relationships. If the persons are acquainted with each other, one can hear questioning from certain perspectives – is it a person's fault that there is a "scuffle" between two?

It is also about how I react in relation to the police and other "helpers." Am I grateful, or do I act more confrontational, which might cause these "helpers" to question me even more? Will I receive support? Do others dare to testify in my support? The Prosecution Ordinance has some provisions on this. Witnesses shall receive information at an early stage about which organizations can offer help and support to them. For the complainant, which is the qualified legal term for crime victims, it shall be investigated whether special protective measures should be taken and an individual protection assessment shall be made. There are also rules in progress that are intended to help both me as a crime victim and witnesses to obtain stronger confidentiality protection in court documents, which are otherwise public. But we have to wait until this autumn before those rules enter into force.

This matter regarding personal security encompasses several groups, which are called witnesses. It is the complainant, i.e., the crime victim, but also witnesses as well as the person who is suspected or charged and participates in a trial or preliminary investigation regarding serious crime. These are measures that can be extremely important. Ultimately, it is something that the police handle. One can question whether this is reasonable. It is also the case that the decisions made are not possible to appeal. There we actually have a lack of legal certainty.

I now want to say something about the right to a victim's counsel, which we safeguard with our reservation. The victim is the crime victim. In 1988, a revolutionary reform took place, where the right was granted to receive assistance from one's own legal counsel during the process when more serious crimes have been committed. The reform primarily concerned women and children who had been subjected to serious crimes. Sexual offenses are definitely included. Crimes against liberty and peace—crimes against liberty and peace—are included, as are crimes against life and health in general if they are of such a degree that imprisonment can be imposed as a penalty. Robbery is also included.

This is something that is very important. Here, it is really about personal attacks. I may have been broken both physically and mentally by this, and I am reasonably worried about what awaits me in a legal process. I may never before have experienced setting foot in a court, where there is a special regime with specific professional expressions and terms. It really concerns serious issues that mean an enormous amount for how I will fare in the future. It is naturally very important to get help with the legal aspects in a qualified way, and it is a help that this legal counsel can provide. I may also need channeling, social support, and help with many other issues that I may have. Through the victim's counsel, I also get help with the process regarding damages, what is called an individual claim in the legal text, which also must be explained if I am not a lawyer.

These reforms have been expanded slightly regarding which crimes have been relevant. But from July 1, 2018, it has gone backwards. It is still the same categories of crime victims who can receive help, but primarily in the first instance. If one appeals to the court of appeal - hovrätt or further - the help ceases.

One then had to take a stand again – was this really necessary? Is it the case that the victim should also testify in the Court of Appeal, or should the films that exist be played? There it is said that help is no longer needed. This has been the subject of an evaluation, which the government has provided. What several were pleased about was that the costs had not skyrocketed. That this should not happen was also the reason why the reform was made. The costs in the Courts of Appeal for the victim's counsel decreased by 50 percent.

But what consequences did it have? The Courts of Appeal thought it worked well, and on the judicial bench, one could perhaps handle it more calmly when there was no victim's counsel present. But the Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Bar Association, and the Crime Victims Authority argue that this is not reasonable. It has had a negative impact on many crime victims' experiences in the Court of Appeal. Here, the crime victims stand alone if we do not get a change to the status quo. One does not even get help interpreting the judgment that the higher instance will deliver.

We consider these to be two important reservations, and I move for their approval.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! This report concerns camera surveillance, secret coercive measures, preliminary investigations, witness protection, legal assistants, and litigation costs.

These are certainly no small matters, but on the contrary, they are what characterize newspapers, the public debate, and unfortunately, many people's everyday lives. The entire report and, above all, the responses to the motions are also characterized by the government's somewhat monotonous answers: We refer to ongoing investigation and preparatory work.

I have some understanding of that answer and am well aware that things need to be investigated thoroughly, especially when it concerns people's safety but also privacy. But I want to say at the same time that there is a time for investigation and a time for action.

We will closely follow the government's work regarding both new laws and upcoming budgets. But we will perhaps above all follow and scrutinize the leadership and the ability that is needed to govern the justice system's authorities. It is those authorities that are central to the country's safety and the security of all inhabitants.

Many of today's problems we do not solve solely with harsher punishments and more money, but rather with clear leadership. It is about creating both consensus and cooperation between public authorities, but also between regions, municipalities, and civil society. It is the government's responsibility, and we will fulfill it.

There are some aspects that the Center Party will always highlight both in general and in the process law. It is that safety and security shall be a matter of course wherever in the country one lives, both in the countryside and in the city.

We will also always emphasize that both women and men shall be covered by the same safety and security. During the first twelve weeks of this year, twelve women have been murdered.

We from the Center Party have today raised the issue both in the Committee on Employment, which handles equality issues, and in the Committee on Justice, to call upon responsible ministers to report to the Riksdag on the work that, according to information, has been initiated to counter men's violence against women. Men's violence against women is a safety issue just as serious as gang violence.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight today some of the Centre Party's proposals in the current report. We see that the possibilities for direct write-offs, limitations on preliminary investigations, and the omission of prosecution should be limited. This applies particularly in cases where there is a clear interest from the crime victim.

Procedural law issues

We clearly see that there are good reasons for an efficient handling of police reports with these tools. But we see the increasingly widespread feeling that justice and the judicial system are not accessible to people. It is not something that should occur in our modern rule of law. We need to follow up on that closely.

When we talk about procedural law issues, it is rightly most often about criminal cases and victims of crime, and we talk about the police. But we must also remember that we have a responsibility for a robust social development in other respects as well. There, Sweden's courts play an important role. It is regarding both granting of permits and reviews that enable investments, development, and jobs. It is also things such as building permits and detailed plans, and it is many environmental issues.

There are many times when processing times are far too long, which delays necessary and desired development throughout the country. We therefore believe that the government needs to review the possibility of strengthening the courts' resources, among other things for the review of environmentally hazardous activities.

It concerns, among other things, the Land and Environment Court at Umeå District Court, which has a central role for Swedish mining examinations but also for much other of Sweden's important infrastructure. I move for approval of reservation 18 under point 20 regarding reinforcement of the judiciary.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 April.)

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