Procedural law issues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD argues that they have implemented important procedural law measures that lowered the threshold for mandatory detention and opportunities for secret wiretapping 1. S considers that they simplified camera surveillance during their government period and now want to utilize technical tools more effectively 2 3. M advocates for a camera offensive where the permit requirement for camera surveillance in public activities is abolished and that the police are allowed to use drones as well as automatic recognition of license plates 4. KD wants judges to wear official attire, advocates for constitutional inquiries and increased cooperation between authorities 5. MP expresses concerns regarding anonymous witnesses 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Madam Speaker! For almost my entire political life, I have been in opposition. It is easy to be in opposition, easy to complain about what the governing government does, easy to come up with your own proposals, and easy to state that if only we were in power, we would run this country.
I will not claim that it has been easy, but we have achieved a lot within procedural law in a short time. Measures that should have been taken nearly 14 years ago when the Sverigedemokraterna first presented these proposals in the Swedish Riksdag are now, with the Sverigedemokraterna at the helm, finally becoming a reality.
In July last year, the limit for mandatory detention was lowered to one and a half years. This means that, for example, robbers automatically become subject to detention. This limit shall be lowered to one year before the end of the mandate period.
Since October, the police can use secret wiretapping and secret data retrieval for preventive purposes. In just half a year, over 30 people have been arrested thanks to the new legislation.
This year, the police will gain access to an additional 2,500 cameras - a fivefold increase. They will be able to use facial recognition, automatic reading of license plates, and increased opportunities to use both drones and Trafikverket's cameras.
During the course of the mandate period, we will make it possible to testify anonymously in order to reach even more of the gang criminals.
Madam Speaker! This is only the beginning in the area of the procedural law issues. The paradigm shift continues.
Today we are debating, as mentioned, precisely the procedural law issues. The Committee on Justice proposes that the Riksdag reject all motions, primarily with reference to ongoing investigation and preparatory work. The motions concern, among other things, camera surveillance, secret coercive measures, detention, and the court process itself.
The procedural law issues are and will be important in the upcoming struggle to step by step curb the increased crime in Sweden. Therefore, it is my opinion, Madam Speaker, that during the course of this mandate period we will go far in specifically toughening the sentences for the criminals, but much of the discussion thereafter will be about in what way we succeed in prosecuting the persons who commit crimes.
"What are you doing here?" Yes, one can truly understand the frustration of the relatives in Skärholmen after the opposition leader's visit on Thursday. A press release is sent out stating that one will visit the crime scene of the horrific murder of Mikael in front of his twelve-year-old son. But when one is then confronted, the journalists are asked to turn off their cameras. I understand the frustration.
We have had a growing crime in Sweden. These problems did not start in 2022 after eight years of Social Democratic rule and a peak in the number of fatal shootings in Sweden. The problems did not start in 2015 either. Those who have not been naive have been able to see the problems grow for a significantly longer period than that.
On the same day as the murder of Mikael occurred, the Social Democrats voted no to introducing visitation zones. They will vote no to the possibility of testifying anonymously. They do not want double punishment for gang criminals. Their government alternative did not agree on our measures regarding being able to use secret wiretapping for preventive purposes, on whether we should have youth prisons, on whether we should have a stricter migration policy, and so on.
Instead, we see people on the left side once again clamoring for more youth centers, and the Social Democrats want to have cross-bloc talks again. But, honestly, what is the point of cross-bloc talks with an opposition that refuses to use a firm hand against the gangs, who would rather pose in front of cameras than vote for proper measures, who from time to time want to sound tough in their rhetoric, but who run and hide from the debates where one is supposed to vote no to the proposals that will entail tough measures against the gangs specifically?
Madam Speaker! It is the criminals who should be afraid, not the people.
Petter Löberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate issues of procedural law. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to know where the cases end up, and it becomes a general criminal policy discussion. And I believe that is needed.
Initially, I move for approval of our reservation 1. It concerns camera surveillance. In recent years, the police and prosecutors have received increasingly more and significantly sharper tools to be able to combat, for example, gang crime but also other types of crime. We consider, hardly surprisingly, that the police and the rest of the justice chain should have the sharpest tools available to prevent and, not least, to hinder and solve crimes.
We know that cameras in certain places have a great significance. Research shows this, for example, when it comes to parking garages, but also when it comes to the fight against and the work to remove the open drug scenes that I spoke about earlier. But in other places, camera surveillance proves not to be as effective.
Our take here is that we believe we need to look a bit extra at whether there are additional obstacles to using these tools in a more efficient way. This concerns, among other things, the access to traffic cameras and cameras used for congestion charges and the like, but also cameras used in real-time monitoring and the response that it can entail. I believe that this part is underutilized in our country and that there is a great potential here. Some say that the solution is always found in the United Kingdom or in the Netherlands where they have fairly well-developed such systems, even if they are starting to become outdated.
We have been able to see this for a long time in the crime-solving part, not least in the spectacular case of the terrorist act on Drottninggatan. There, the terrorist who was convicted was caught using camera surveillance as the basis for evidence. But it is hundreds of cases that have been able to be solved with the help of camera surveillance. Now it is time to take the next step to prevent and perhaps stop ongoing crime. This is what our reservation is fundamentally about.
We have probably been a bit frustrated in general here in the chamber because we feel that it is going too slowly. It has been quite a few years since we changed the rules that made it easier to install surveillance cameras. There have been technical problems, problems with data storage capacity and problems with procurement. It has been sluggish, as it so often is.
I believe that the citizens and we in politics expect these cameras to be rolled out at a faster pace. That being said, it is still a balance between personal privacy and camera surveillance. They should be in the right places and under the conditions that exist in order to disrupt, for example, drug sales and the like.
Procedural law is fundamentally about ensuring that the criminal law decisions we make here also have an impact in practice. It is a central part of the chain of justice. And we have been able to see that we must not be careless in ensuring that all links in the chain receive the resources needed for it to hold together. It is a cliché of the century this part about the chain of justice having to hold together.
But prosecutors, the police authority, and the courts must receive resources in proportion to the mandate they have and that we give them. This applies in particular to today's great challenge, the operations of the correctional services, which we shall debate here in the chamber on Monday. It is completely obvious that there is a mismatch between the expectations that we in politics have, depending on which laws we enact, and the reality that exists regarding the expansion of places within the correctional services. It will lead to enormous quality problems in the long run.
We simply have a great responsibility not to delegate this to individual agencies and say that it is their responsibility to ensure that the chain of justice holds together. This responsibility has always fundamentally rested with the government and, ultimately, the Riksdag. We must together ensure that it hangs together. Unfortunately, I do not know if we are truly living up to that today.
Generally, regarding criminal procedure, I can say that we intend to provide the resources required in the budget. I believe we are in agreement on this across the block boundaries. It is nothing that we do with a light heart. We would, of course, rather spend the money on the elderly and take care of them in a more dignified and fine way than on building prisons. We would, of course, rather spend the money on green transition than on buying fighter jets to manage security policy. But the current time unfortunately requires that we do this, and that is what we intend to do. We must do what is required here and now, but also remind ourselves all that this is not a natural state. We must return to a time when we did not build prisons and hire more police officers as a matter of principle, but could instead allocate the resources to something more sensible. Therefore, the perspective is to reduce crime centrally in the criminal justice policy.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I can state that we are actually in agreement on quite a lot when it comes to the view on camera surveillance and such things. I wonder a bit about the newly born interest from the Social Democrats' side. You sat in government for eight years. This could not have come as a bolt from the blue but is a development that has been ongoing for a very long time. What was it that prevented the Social Democrats and the government from tackling these issues already then, when you sat in government?
Petter Löberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Member Elofsson asks a very justified question, which I shall answer. We did not sit still in the boat during those eight years. We implemented a number of legislative changes that made it easier for both municipalities and the Police Authority to install cameras themselves. We changed the licensing and simplified the processes.
I described in my speech that there are many different reasons. I believe that much is about inertia in the system when it comes to procurement and other things, such as the storage of images and material. It was rather there that the bottlenecks existed. When it comes to the possibility of installing cameras in crime-prone areas, we implemented those legislative changes during our government's period.
I believe we are largely in agreement. We now have an investigation and, hopefully, a legislative proposal underway to further change these rules. I believe we are in agreement there. We have been able to see that this has yielded results.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I have a supplementary question. The Member touched upon the problem with cameras for congestion charges and such things – there are confidentiality obstacles and the like. It is not just about procurement, but also when it comes to the confidentiality legislation, one has had a long time to change it and give the authorities the opportunity to exchange information and obtain it in other ways. The question remains: Why did nothing happen over eight years regarding this?
Petter Löberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Our reservation is that we should take a broader approach to this. Look, for example, at how many police vehicles have built-in scanning systems that allow one to monitor, in a completely different way, for example, license plates to see if vehicles are owned by persons who are crime suspects and if the vehicles are deregistered or not inspected and so on. An enormous development has occurred during our term.
I believe we are simply in agreement that we now need to take the next step. When is the Police Authority ready for this? It depends on whether the technical prerequisites exist and whether one has this entire system in place. First and foremost, however, it is important to use the regulatory systems that we have had in place for a long time. Not even there has one really managed or had the time, for a multitude of different reasons.
One must know that the Police Authority has not lacked challenges during the last decade. They have been fully occupied with handling, among other things, shootings and explosions and perhaps have not had time to prioritize the crime-preventive tool that camera surveillance is.
I believe that these things have now been put in place to a greater extent, and we hope that we can have a broader palette of tools moving forward.
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Madam Speaker! Procedural law concerns a multitude of different areas where changes are needed. With respect for the fact that this must be done carefully and thoughtfully and investigated thoroughly, it must also be done with some higher speed, for several reasons. One reason is the need to improve the possibilities to combat serious organized crime.
A good example of when higher speed was needed, which shows that it is possible to make a difference quite quickly, is the legislative change made on 1 October 2023. It was then that a number of legislative changes entered into force which meant expanded possibilities to use secret coercive measures, which made it permissible to conduct wiretapping without a concrete suspicion of a crime.
At the end of February, it could be read in the media that since the law was changed on 1 October, courts had granted the police permission for so-called secret coercive measures 200 times. The police had prevented a number of serious crimes and arrested over 30 people with the help of the new law. It concerned preparation for murder, serious weapons offenses and other serious crime.
Certainly, there are those who have been concerned about the law and wondered how one could obtain a coherent picture regarding personal privacy. But I agree with the Commissioner of the Swedish Police, who has expressed that we must weigh privacy interests against efficiency; when we have such a societal development, we must try everything that is possible.
Yes, we have to put many pieces in place in this game. And remember: This made a difference very quickly.
Our free and open society is under threat, and in that case, one must think anew and shift the focus somewhat between effective crime fighting and personal privacy - because of the ongoing development.
For effective crime fighting, it is clearly necessary that the authorities in some cases have access to secret coercive measures. Granted, the use of secret coercive measures can entail restrictions on fundamental rights protected by the Instrument of Government. Therefore, a careful balancing must always be made between the intrusion into the individual's privacy and the interest that the legislation aims to protect.
Extensive work is underway in the area of coercive measures. The Government has recently submitted two propositions to the Riksdag - one on preventive coercive measures to prevent and deter serious crimes and one on better opportunities to execute deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the proposals are also being prepared in the report Secret data interception - evaluation and permanent legislation. I will not anticipate the debate on these here and now.
We have in the report to treat a number of motions on issues that are already being addressed in propositions and in investigations that are both ongoing and have just been presented.
The camera surveillance investigation was presented on Monday, April 15. When I, as a youth politician, stood in the Skara municipal council and waved George Orwell's book 1984, I never thought that I would one day stand here as a member of Parliament and praise a camera surveillance investigation. But I do.
Video surveillance is a central tool for preventing and investigating crimes, and societal developments mean that we must move the positions forward significantly. The Government started the work early to produce offensive reforms, and now we have received the first sharp proposals.
The investigation presents proposals for relaxations and the possibility of more camera surveillance in public activities. The permit requirement is abolished. Municipalities, regions and authorities will no longer need to apply for permits to use camera surveillance. This is a significant simplification that ensures that the so-called starting distance for installing cameras is shortened and the bureaucracy is reduced.
It shall also become easier for the police to resort to camera surveillance. It is proposed that the police and others who fight crime be allowed to monitor with cameras not only places where crimes have already been committed but also places where there is a risk of future crimes or that are strategically important for criminals. This provides completely different opportunities to prevent and preclude crime.
It is proposed that civilian police vehicles may have camera surveillance running even when the police officers leave the police car, which is not permitted today. It shall also become easier for the police to use drones.
The direction of the investigation is a welcome development both for the police's crime-fighting and for the municipalities' crime prevention work in order to increase safety on streets and squares. This summer, the government will also receive more investigated proposals to give the police, among other things, better access to automatic recognition of license plates and the right to monitor traffic cameras in real time.
The government has launched the camera offensive and will now ensure that the proposals become a reality as soon as possible. Step by step, we are doing what is required to restore safety and freedom in our country.
Madam Speaker! The content of many motions is being handled, and the work is in full swing. I am glad that we will soon be able to see the proposals here in the chamber and then be able to debate them in more detail. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag shall reject all motion requests regarding procedural law issues.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I have thought about asking a bit about secrecy, which Charlotte Nordström raised. We have secrecy legislation in many areas, and as Charlotte Nordström said in her speech, it sometimes needs to be reviewed. In many cases, it is important to protect, but sometimes authorities need to be able to share information more easily, not least as reality changes in different ways.
In the large justice policy motion that we in Miljöpartiet have initiated, and whose requests are partly included in the report, there is a proposal to enable secrecy regarding detention decisions, something that active prosecutors have suggested. One should be able to have it when someone is detained in their absence in order to increase the chances of prosecuting the suspect.
The committee rejects this without any particular justification, Madam Speaker, and I would like to ask: Is this proposal something that Charlotte Nordström would like to read up on more, if that has not already happened, and could imagine considering? Can she in that case, if she thinks it is a good idea, try to convince the Minister for Justice to present it to the Riksdag?
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Madam Speaker! I was very much on the issues of privacy, the member, but I actually never mentioned the secrecy. It is a trade-off, and in the committee we perhaps do not have a complete text regarding just that rejection.
The work is, however, underway and being discussed, and I can probably promise that our Minister of Justice is reviewing all good proposals. Then we will see when this is to be discussed and when it lies as a proposal.
We want to make a real difference, and then one must listen to everyone.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! Should I interpret this as that the concrete proposal to introduce confidentiality for detention decisions is something that is being prepared in the Government Offices? If so, I think that is very positive. Is that the case?
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to inform the members that I am not sitting in those rooms and do not have concrete information about what is being discussed at the ministry regarding the issue, but I assume and know that one looks as broadly as possible at all good proposals. We will have to see what will be put on the table here in the chamber of the Riksdag.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are going to debate procedural law issues. In the criminal policy debate, Denmark is now often highlighted as a good example. It has become somewhat of a pioneer country in law and order, and it is therefore not so strange that the Christian Democrats and the government have drawn inspiration for several legislative proposals from what has already been seen to work in Denmark. There, they have to a large extent pushed back gang crime.
There is another issue where we perhaps should take inspiration from Denmark, and that is the order in the Danish court. The lack of respect in the Swedish court is today a growing problem, Madam Speaker. The examples are many where the accused sits and sleeps during the proceedings, shouts obscenities or mocks people in the courtroom. This is unacceptable.
When one as a Swedish visitor comes to Denmark and a Danish court, one is struck by what discipline and order there is in the court. When the sentences are pronounced, for example, everyone stands up for the judge, who is dressed in official robes.
I mean that this is something that Sweden could take after, for I am quite certain that it is only Sweden and Finland in the world that have judges who do not wear official robes. This may in itself seem like a marginal issue, but official robes for judges have a great signaling value. You have surely seen from courts in other countries that the judge always wears official robes. This gives an increased dignity to the proceedings while at the same time being a reminder for the judge and others of the office.
On the other hand, the absence of official robes gives the impression that it is "ordinary" civil servants who hold the judicial role, but the judges are officials appointed to act based on laws and regulations. They are administrators of a function and appointed to interpret the country's laws. They derive their legitimacy from their positions, and this should be clarified as a way to show that the judicial power is impersonal. With that said, I want to work towards ensuring that judges are provided with official robes in the future.
Madam Speaker! In the report, several measures are raised that the government is taking linked to procedural law issues, and there the government's camera offensive has been mentioned. Nor can I get around this subject, for it is an example of something that will expand the possibilities for camera surveillance.
CCTV surveillance, as mentioned, has great operational significance. It helps to prevent and deter crime. If crimes have been committed, it helps to identify, apprehend, and prosecute the guilty, as surveillance footage can often be of decisive importance for the subsequent criminal investigation.
As I mentioned in a previous speech, I visited Malmö Police this week and was, among other things, able to visit the command center and those who work with camera surveillance or camera monitoring on site. There are police officers who sit and monitor it in real-time, and many times one can follow events in real-time. The operators can direct patrols correctly, and perpetrators can be arrested more or less on the spot.
Now, there are also deployed drones in Malmö city that take off when a crime occurs. One can monitor a crime scene or a criminal before a patrol is on site. It is very effective. When I was there, an incident actually occurred – an evacuation in a school in Malmö, with a suspected perpetrator.
Before the patrol is on site, the operator can ensure that the drone takes off and flies to the location. One can then follow the suspected perpetrator on site and keep an eye on the person before the patrol manages to arrive there. It is therefore a very effective means that will be expanded. It will also be used now during the Eurovision Song Contest, with an additional number of drones, so it has well arrived to stay.
The government is also investigating expanded camera surveillance in several areas. It is important to establish legislation that better meets the needs that exist today. We Christian Democrats want Sweden to become better at taking advantage of the opportunities that exist with new technology, such as facial recognition. In addition, there must be better and expanded cooperation between the police and other authorities and actors.
The police should be granted access to more material from others' cameras. Today, we are actually engaging in a great waste of resources. A glaring example of this is the Öresund Bridge, where the customs have installed cameras, the police have installed cameras, and the Öresund Consortium has installed cameras. One has, in principle, three cameras monitoring the same events, so in total, there are now about thirty cameras on the Öresund Bridge distributed among three different actors. It is pure waste. What is it then that prevents sharing? Well, it is that customs considers itself prevented from forwarding images to the police due to the current secrecy legislation. It is completely insane.
Madam Speaker! When we debate procedural law, I also want to say something about crime clearance in general. We must become better at solving crimes. I can state that we have become better at it, but that we still have a long way to go before we are satisfied on that point. The Government has also begun a comprehensive reorganization of the entire crime policy, and several legislative changes that will have a real effect are on the way.
One such thing is anonymous witnesses, who have been investigated and whom the government is working with. Personally, I believe that anonymous witnesses can be an important tool in some very specific cases with a high threat level and risk. I do not believe that it will be used particularly often, but it is good if the tool exists as a last resort when one has difficulty moving forward in the investigation of serious crimes.
A reform that we Christian Democrats believe would have a greater effect is a change of the so-called principle of immediacy, which means that only what is said in court has weight and constitutes evidence in a criminal case - not what is said during police interrogations and so on. The principle means, therefore, that the court can only judge based on what is said during the trial itself. This is a problem today because we can see how suspects systematically remain silent throughout the entire preliminary investigation in order to then have everything "served" and be able to adapt their story and their answers.
We mean that the administration of justice must be more proactive than that, and once again we look a bit at Denmark. One can say that a certain loosening of the principle of immediacy was introduced on January 1, 2022, when expanded possibilities were introduced to, in certain cases, include early interrogations as evidence. This is good, but we Christian Democrats believe that further steps should be taken. A concrete proposal to change the principle of immediacy that we are pushing for is to introduce so-called basic interrogations, which they have in Denmark.
It means that the suspect, already at an early stage of a preliminary investigation, is heard in detail before a judge regarding the suspicion of a crime. What emerges in these interrogations can then be used as evidence in proceedings, and it is considered to have a higher evidentiary value than information provided in a police interrogation. The suspect's defense counsel may be present, and higher formal requirements are imposed than in a standard interrogation. We believe that Sweden should have a similar system.
Harsher penalties are obviously important, but if crimes are not solved and criminals are not prosecuted, higher sentencing scales are of little value. With the brutal crime development that we are seeing, we must do several things in parallel. It is not just about criminal law but also about procedural law and what tools that the police and prosecutors are given. Even the crime prevention work is absolutely crucial to stop the new recruitment of children and young people into the darkness of criminality.
With this said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! Procedural law questions may not sound super sexy for those who are not lawyers, but it is probably so important.
Perhaps the most important change that the government has planned in this area is something that we will likely debate this autumn, depending on whether the government proceeds with the proposal on anonymous witnesses. I do hope, however, that they do not do so, because there are strong reasons against it and reasonable fears surrounding it.
Among other things, it is described as something pattern-breaking even though it will be used in at most a few cases, if at all. This raises hopes that the reform will lead to something very big, and it creates expectations among witnesses of being able to testify anonymously even though in the vast majority of cases they will not be able to do so, which will lead to disappointment and damage to trust. Here the government has a great responsibility, and we will likely return to the discussion.
Madam Speaker! Video surveillance is also a procedural law issue that is addressed in the report. Last autumn, I called for an initiative from Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer to change the regulatory framework regarding video surveillance in traffic in order to more easily be able to record license plates from cars to see movement patterns, i.e., how cars have moved, and more easily be able to transfer that information.
It is not every day that I give credit to Gunnar Strömmer - others have that job - but in this case, I still want to do so. This was heard quickly and a supplementary directive was given to an investigation to include the question. I think that was very good, because this is a tool that, not least in the traffic situation, has been used far too little. As the previous speaker said: That three different actors have camera surveillance on the same stretch is naturally unreasonable.
Madam Speaker! Secret coercive measures are also a topical issue. Just today, the motion period expires for a government proposition on further facilitating the police's use of secret coercive measures even for preventive purposes, that is, when there is no concrete suspicion of a crime against an individual person. It is therefore a submitted proposition, and we will have a debate in the chamber on it during the spring.
I can, however, reveal already now that Miljöpartiet supports it in some parts but will reject it in some parts. The police have received powerful tools even in more of the cases where there is no concrete suspicion of a crime, but here an expansion is taking place, and a balance will be needed.
An important aspect regarding secret coercive measures overall – it is about bugging, camera surveillance, accessing mobile phones and reading emails and messages and the like – is that the legislation is incredibly complex today. It must be made more easily understandable. It cannot be that only prosecutors and trained judges understand the legislation; even we others, who are not legally trained, must be able to understand what the regulatory framework actually looks like.
Finally, Madam Speaker: I had an exchange of remarks earlier regarding the fact that Miljöpartiet wants to make it possible to introduce secrecy on detention decisions. It is an issue that we actually see matters. We cannot have a regulatory framework that allows someone who is detained in their absence to, in all cases, take part in the decision. It lies somewhat in the nature of the matter that many who are detained in their absence keep away from the police and other authorities. Being able to place the decision under secrecy so that the detained person does not know about it is therefore an important issue, and I hope that the government will heed this and take it further.
With this I move - also in this report, Madam Speaker - for approval of reservation number 7.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.