Procedural law issues

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Three words: credibility, determination, and delivery. Credibility – we keep what we promise. Determination – we move forward with the proposals that are needed. Delivery – we also deliver what we have promised the voters.

In March 2022, I participated in my very first committee debate in this chamber. That debate, just like today, was about procedural law issues. In March 2022, the Sweden Democrats and the current government parties were in opposition. The pace of reform from the government at that time was slow. The proposals were few. Riots would soon hit Swedish suburbs. And the year would end with a total of 62 fatal shootings, the highest number ever and a tripling of the number in a very short time. Sweden was not doing well.

In that debate, the Riksdag directed a total of eleven announcements to the government regarding the area of procedural law, and in the debate, I chose to raise four of these issues.

The first question concerned camera surveillance, regarding that municipalities and regions that wanted to use camera surveillance should be exempt from applying for permits. On April 1 last year, that proposal was implemented.

The second question concerned secret coercive measures, regarding the ability to link secret coercive measures to a person rather than a telephone number. This was implemented on 1 October 2023, at the same time as we also made it possible to use secret coercive measures, such as secret telephone surveillance, secret data retrieval, and secret room surveillance, for preventive purposes.

The third question concerned the lowered threshold for mandatory detention. On July 1, 2023, the threshold was lowered from two years to one and a half years. In July 2026, it is proposed that the threshold be lowered for even more types of crimes, including aggravated violation of a woman's integrity and honor-based oppression.

The fourth question concerned the possibility of testifying anonymously. We introduced that possibility on 1 January 2025.

Three words: credibility, determination and delivery. We keep what we promise.

When we took over power in Sweden in the autumn of 2022, Sweden was not doing well. The number of fatal shootings was set to be the highest ever. The inflation rate was over 10 percent. Fuel prices were over 28 kronor per liter. Food prices reached record levels, and Sweden was in a deep recession.

Today, less than four years later, Sweden is on its way out of the recession. The price increases on food have stopped, and on April 1, the food VAT will be lowered by 6 percent. Inflation is defeated. Fuel prices are more than 10 kronor lower, and thanks to lowered tax and reduced reduction obligation, Sweden has gone from the EU's highest fuel prices to the EU's lowest.

35 days into the new year, not a single person has been shot dead in Sweden. It has actually been a full 54 days since the last fatal shooting in Sweden. Not a single person has been injured in a shooting in Sweden this year. At this time of year four years ago, seven people had already been shot dead. The year 2022 was set to end in a record for fatal shootings – a total of 62.

Since our legislative proposals have successively entered into legal force, the gross violence has decreased in Sweden. Our policy makes a difference, and Sweden is a better country today than it was four years ago.

It is a little more than half a year left until the election, and we can already see clear results of our policy in a number of different areas. We are far from finished, but we have shown that we are four parties who all pull in the same direction to make Sweden both safer and freer.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

Procedural law is one of the rule of law's most fundamental building blocks, i.e., the rules for how justice actually takes place in practice. It is through procedural law that our common rules take effect, and it is through it that the state in court exercises its power against the individual under accountability and with transparency.

For the Social Democrats, this is fundamentally a question of order and justice. It is about the legitimacy of the justice system and about people's trust in society's institutions. That trust is a prerequisite for a society that holds together. But it does not arise by itself. It is built through processes that are perceived as just, legally secure, and equal for everyone regardless of education, background, or economic resources.

Due process must therefore also function in reality, not just on paper. When legal processes are bypassed, delayed, or perceived as incomprehensible, the trust in the entire rule of law risks being undermined. At the same time, efficiency and society's ability to prosecute crime must not occur at the expense of the individual's fundamental rights, but also not in a way that in practice benefits the one who breaks the rules.

It is here, in the tension between the state's responsibility to maintain law and order and the individual's right to a fair trial, that procedural law has its special significance. The victim's position is central in this. When legal processes drag on, when trials are postponed, or when crimes are never prosecuted because the system is unable to reach the suspect, then the rule of law fails its promise to the crime victim. When societal development changes – technically, socially, and organizationally – procedural law must also develop, otherwise we risk obtaining a regulatory framework that can be manipulated, bypassed, or undermined.

It is against that background that we Social Democrats have presented proposals aimed at stopping the incredibly provocative behavior where perpetrators evade service of process to escape punishment. It is a mockery of all crime victims. Due to a case involving a TV celebrity who confessed to about thirty sex purchases but hid abroad during the prescription period to avoid punishment, it seems that more people have finally opened their eyes to this phenomenon. It is entirely good that it is being highlighted, but I want to emphasize that this is not about an individual case but is something that is far too commonly occurring. Not least, I hear from other women that violent men deliberately evade service of process to drag out separation processes, which places vulnerable women in a more vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation.

Mr. Speaker! In connection with sex trafficking, I also want to take the opportunity to mention that we Social Democrats consider it a crime where the penalty should be imprisonment. I am happy to elaborate on that in another debate than the one concerning procedural law.

Mr. Speaker! Today, it is therefore possible to deliberately evade service of process until the prescription period expires and in that way completely avoid legal review and thus escape punishment. This is not a loophole in the margin but a systemic error exploited by perpetrators. This means that the state makes very large efforts to reach persons who actively set out to evade, while this behavior is rewarded because the one who hides can, in practice, go free. It is unreasonable.

For us Social Democrats, the starting point is clear: It should not pay to stand outside the justice system. Therefore, we have presented three concrete proposals to close the loopholes.

Firstly, we propose that it should be criminalized to deliberately evade service of process. Sabotaging the judicial process should not be a risk-free behavior. On the contrary, the justice system must clearly signal that those who attempt to evade responsibility also commit a crime against the legal order.

Secondly, we propose that the prescription period should be able to be frozen during the time that service of process is ongoing, so that it simply should not be profitable to evade service. Prescription should protect against unreasonably old claims, not function as a reward for those who delay the legal process.

Thirdly, we want to enable simpler digital service of process. Society has been digitized in many respects, but the rules for service of process have not quite kept up. There are secure digital solutions that people use for contact with authorities in other contexts that should also be used in these situations. Furthermore, this is something that the authorities themselves have asked the government for, but which the government has not delivered.

We submitted these three proposals in a committee initiative in the Committee on Justice already over a year ago. At that time, the Tidö parties said no. After the high-profile case of the sex-buying TV celebrity who evaded disclosure and punishment, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice said last week that the rules must be changed. It is, of course, a welcome, if belated, awakening.

If these three proposals had already been reality, this entertainment personality actually would not have been able to come to Sweden again without serving their sentence. But when the Riksdag is now to take a stand on these proposals again, the Tidö parties say no once more – just one week after the Prime Minister's and the Justice Minister's new promises.

To say one thing in the media to get nice headlines but do the opposite in the Riksdag is weak and unserious. One can easily suspect that it is about voting no to proposals simply because they come from us Social Democrats. If that is the case, it is regrettable that political games are placed before what is best for our country's justice system.

We Social Democrats have voted for almost all the proposals that the government has placed on the Committee on Justice's table during this parliamentary term. But the Tidö parties have voted no to all our proposals except one, namely the one about removing the sale of pedophile dolls. I regret that the government is not more responsive and prepared to act together to increase safety and justice in our country.

When we are to vote on the matter we are debating here tonight, we Social Democrats will vote to strengthen the rule of law's ability to actually carry out legal processes, improve the situation for crime victims, and clarify that it is the state, not the suspect, that sets the framework for the legal process. We will vote to criminalize evading disclosure. We will vote to freeze the statute of limitations, and we will vote to introduce digital disclosure. I regret that the Tidö parties are voting no again.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! We do not have a large audience here tonight, and the debate is not being televised either, as far as I know. For the record, I nevertheless want to state that we are once again hearing lies and untruths from Social Democrats in the speaker's chair. This is a political theater that I personally am quite tired of after having been here for four years.

What is being stated from the rostrum has been presented right here where we stand to the Minister for Justice, and the Minister for Justice has answered that an investigation will be appointed. This will therefore be addressed. It also appears in the report. That the government would not share this intent and not want to look at this issue is therefore incorrect. This will be investigated, and changes will be implemented in accordance with the thousands of legislative changes that have already occurred.

As background, I can say that the government is restructuring the crime policy in large. We are doing this to achieve a fundamental shift in perspective from an entirely too one-sided focus on the perpetrator, which the Social Democrats have historically had, to a focus on crime victims and societal protection. A central part is, of course, that more crimes shall be investigated and prosecuted. This is important for several reasons, such as society's trust in the justice system and the redress of crime victims.

The government has taken a long series of measures to ensure that those who commit crimes cannot evade justice. An important point is that law enforcement authorities must be able to use secret coercive measures to be able to apprehend wanted persons. An incredible amount is happening, even linked to data sharing, and this will be taken into consideration.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a lie we are hearing here from Fredrik Kärrholm that it was a lie I described in my speech. I simply described how the question has been addressed in the Riksdag and, for that part, by the Minister for Justice. The problem is not that the government should lack insight or that they have made promises to investigate the question.

The problem is, Fredrik Kärrholm, that nothing has happened for a year despite these promises to, for example, appoint an inquiry. It was something that the Minister for Justice said here in the chamber a year ago in a debate prompted by the fact that the Tidö parties voted no to our proposals to ensure that perpetrators cannot evade service of process and in that way escape their punishment. But during that year, no inquiry has been appointed.

When there is then a big hullabaloo surrounding a TV celebrity and both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice go out and promise that things will be set in order and that an investigation will be commissioned, it is not strange to ask the question whether this investigation will now come. It did not come last time it was promised. Will it come this time? There are many of us who wonder.

Something we also wonder, Fredrik Kärrholm, is why one votes no to the proposal if the government now wants to change the regulatory framework and investigate the issue. Doesn't that send very strange signals to the Swedish people? Doesn't Fredrik Kärrholm think that some might perceive it a bit as hypocrisy?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! This government has done more than any government has ever done when it comes to crime policy. We have historically fast deliveries.

I previously mentioned the possibility of using secret coercive measures to be able to apprehend wanted persons. I could stand here all evening and list things we do, for example, that we have developed working methods with faster prosecution and permanent availability of service linked to just service.

The government has also tasked a number of central authorities with strengthening international work to reach criminals and wanted persons hiding abroad. Last year, 200 Swedish criminals were arrested abroad, of which about 50 were gang leaders.

I also want to remind that we have changed the prescription legislation. The proposals are extensive. They mean, among other things, that crimes that can be punished with life imprisonment shall never be subject to prescription and that sentenced prison terms shall never be prescribed. We have therefore done an enormous amount connected to exactly this. One can ask why the previous Social Democratic government did nothing about all of this for eight years.

We thus have a historic delivery in crime policy. We have done more than any government has ever done, and this will also be taken into account. I am not the Minister of Justice, so I cannot answer exactly how these issues will be handled or specify a closer time. But that it happens, I can promise that.

In light of the fact that the member is an experienced politician and knows exactly how legislation works and that there is a limitation in the legislative machinery, I would like to ask what of all that we have done the member thinks we should have prioritized away during the last year in favor of precisely this, which we will, therefore, be taking care of shortly.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Kärrholm just asked why we are not doing anything about what they are now doing. I want to remind Fredrik Kärrholm that the Social Democrats have initiated 75 percent of all the bills that have been placed on the Justice Committee's table during this parliamentary term – many very good bills, I would like to add. Our parties are in agreement on the vast majority of things.

Everything that Fredrik Kärrholm rambled on about is something we Social Democrats have supported, consider to be good policy, and also would have implemented if we were in government. But now, that is not what this debate is about, but rather the deficiencies in the rules of procedure.

We see examples of perpetrators who buy drugs and commit other crimes and who flee and hide, and in that way escape punishment. It is a deep injustice and a mockery of all crime victims, which we Social Democrats have tried to persuade the government to change for over a year. But so far, the Tidö parties have voted no at every opportunity they have had. I regret that.

Talk is cheap, Fredrik Kärrholm, but in the Riksdag it is votes that count. The rule of law is not built on press releases and headlines but on votes, results, and decisions. Now there is an opportunity to make decisions to change this terribly provoking order – but the Tidö parties choose to vote no to implementing the changes that both the Minister for Justice and the Prime Minister promised last week. I think it is strange, and I believe that more people listening to the debate do not quite understand why one says no to this despite having promised.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are in the final year of the parliamentary term. The pace of reform has been very high, and this is also reflected in this report. The motions concern, in all essential respects, areas where the government has already implemented reforms or has ongoing work or investigations underway. We see now that our policy is yielding results.

Mr. Speaker! Since 2018, 382 people have died in gun violence in Sweden. These are horrific figures. But during the first month of this year, however, not a single person was shot dead. This is a positive milestone in an overall trend of decreased gang violence over the last two years.

That this gang violence arose in Sweden was no coincidence. It was not a storm that suddenly swept over our country. No, it was a direct consequence of a series of political failures. The positive development now is also not a coincidence, but it is happening thanks to a very well-thought-out policy that ensures we push back organized crime.

One example is that the police previously had to stop conducting wiretapping if it turned out that a suspected contract killer was 14 years old. This meant that children under 15 became extra attractive recruits for the gangs because the regulations reduced the risk of detection for adult clients. We changed that last year.

Another example: Previously, gang leaders could direct violence from abroad with very low risk and issue assignments via encrypted chats. Now, we are ensuring that more leading actors are arrested and sentenced. In the exchange just now, I mentioned that the police caught 200 wanted persons last year, of which about fifty were gang leaders.

Mr. Speaker! The war against organized crime is not won. But we have won decisive battles, and the networks are now being pushed back under heavy pressure. The criminals, of course, do not give up. The networks try to adapt. They change methods. New people are recruited. Crime changes its appearance. This means that we must hold on. We must continue in the same clear direction, and we must do so with order in the legislative work.

Procedural law is central to this work, as we have heard from the previous speakers. When we now change rules regarding coercive measures, service of process, and evidence, we must do so in a thoughtful manner. Legal certainty must be strong, and the oversight must be real. We need to keep together the reform work that we are now carrying out at a very high tempo.

Mr. Speaker! I move that the committee's proposal in the report be approved and that all motion proposals be rejected.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! The entire justice system is, of course, extremely important in our society. It is with the help of the tools that exist there that we shall try to strive as much as we can to realize a reasonable justice.

I would like to move for approval of reservation number 3. But I also want to express my strong sympathies for the reservation that the Social Democrats have submitted and the speech that Teresa Carvalho gave from this rostrum. There was much there that is extremely important, and she mentioned reforms that I hope we will be able to implement together after a change of government.

The Left Party's reservation is that we believe it is unreasonable that many of the justice system's properties are not owned by the public. Some are owned by Specialfastigheter, a limited company which in turn is owned by the state. This company develops and manages, among other things, correctional facilities, youth homes, court buildings, and police properties.

But not everything is publicly owned. In several places and within several sectors, the justice system rents premises from private property owners. There are also examples of these socially important properties being owned by companies with links to serious crime.

It is not appropriate that socially important properties stand outside our democratic control and also risk being either infiltrated by or sold to unserious, criminal, and security-politically unsuitable persons and owners. In light of what is happening in the world, the prevailing security situation in Sweden is also such that it appears both naive and unjustifiable for this to continue.

In the comments to this reservation, which is based on a motion from the general motion period, it appears that the government has taken some initiatives that lie on the periphery of this.

In August 2024, the government tasked Domstolsverket, Kriminalvården, and Polismyndigheten to jointly attempt to identify security risks linked to property owners and to rental conditions and to attempt to develop methods – first, it is said, within the framework of the current regulatory system. Then we may not get very far. It is also said that, in addition to minimizing the security risks within this framework, they could be encouraged to submit proposals for measures that can be taken to further reduce these risks. When this was worked out, it was also, wisely enough, intended that it should occur in cooperation with Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Säkerhetspolisen, Åklagarmyndigheten and, if necessary, other relevant authorities and actors.

Something that also lies in this with ownership conditions is that it is not simple. One cannot simply break into an existing ownership structure because ownership rights are regulated primarily in civil law and a lease agreement cannot be torn up just however one likes. One is bound by it.

But one can manage the ownership conditions in other ways that involve certain restrictions on the property owner's rights. There are examples of how this can be done in a smart way. It is necessary to create effective tools that make it possible for the authorities to handle situations involving risky ownership conditions.

What could this be then? The mentioned authorities, which received the assignment, have certain proposals. A system could be built with control of ownership conditions based on acquisition permits. One would, therefore, need to have certain qualifications to be allowed to own such properties. Alternatively, or in addition to that, a state right of first refusal can be used as an instrument. When an owner wants to transfer their property, one can step in and check if it would be better if the state, society, owned it and in that case take over.

One is also, from the side of these authorities, in favor of the idea that it should be considered whether certain society-critical properties should be owned permanently by the state and not be transferable to private individuals.

It is also interesting to see that in a government investigation, an SOU, from 2024, some things were proposed that touch upon this. There, it was argued that state and municipal rights of first refusal could be introduced in certain cases. The state right of first refusal was then unfortunately directed only – which however was surely sufficient for the purpose – at the military or civil defense. This I respect fully.

When it comes to activities to prevent crime, the investigation, according to its directives of course, focuses on countering organized crime at the municipal level so that a municipality can make a purchase. It would be extremely successful if the equivalent were also done on the state's side.

I mean that there are important things here to follow and adhere to. We have also long had a municipal right of first refusal, which fulfilled its functions. I believe it would be wise to reinstate it, but that it should also be done on the state side.

This should, I mean, be a crime-preventive activity that is based on structures, where we release some of the one-sided focus that the Sverigedemokraterna and the governing parties have had on solely working with the guilt issues and the punishment. When we do that, we act in situations where the terrible has already occurred.

I mean that we must find many more tools to be truly preventive and look at this with restricting access to properties so that they cannot be used in criminal activities, for infiltrations or for money laundering via these companies. It is extremely unfortunate that this can happen today.

I also cannot help but comment that SD is now beating its chest and, among other things, mixing in gasoline prices in the judicial system. It has not much to do with procedural law!

This with historically fast deliveries, we can also reflect on now, when we in the Riksdag might be forced to work during the summer. But at the beginning of the mandate period, we had to wait a very long time for government bills.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Dear colleagues! Good evening! In my speech, I will focus on the Green Party's reservation. The subject we are debating tonight is very broad, but I will primarily speak about the Green Party's reservation. The matter concerns secret and preventive measures.

During the last decade, Miljöpartiet has contributed to developing the police's possibilities to use secret and preventive coercive measures. This has been strongly demanded by law enforcement agencies and assessed as crucial for combating criminal gangs. With better possibilities to use secret coercive measures even for preventive purposes, the police's ability to prevent and investigate serious violent crimes and prosecute perpetrators has been strengthened. Thus, the use of coercive measures is important for public safety in society and for providing justice to crime victims, but also from a crime prevention perspective.

This is important for Miljöpartiet. But what are also very important principles for Miljöpartiet are proportionality and efficiency. They must exist, and they shall stand in reasonable proportion to each other.

While secret and preventive coercive measures are and have been an effective tool in the Police Authority's work, it is crucial that the use of coercive measures is regulated within clear frameworks to ensure legal certainty.

A constant balance must be struck between efficiency and proportionality, and the use of secret coercive measures must always be in reasonable proportion to the interference with personal integrity.

That is why Miljöpartiet has also said no to a number of the government's proposals that we consider have gone too far. Among other things, we have emphasized the importance of limiting and clarifying the possibilities of using surplus information. Sometimes we have partially agreed; we agreed, for example, with the commission's proposal on secret and preventive coercive measures against children, but we thought the government's proposal was too far-reaching.

Last autumn, DN made a summary of what percentage of the questions Miljöpartiet had voted in agreement with the government on. They claimed it was 43 percent in the area of crime policy. It would be interesting if an update of that article were made, because it sometimes sounds like Miljöpartiet says no to everything, which is not the case.

We have, however, emphasized the importance of continuously evaluating the legislation on secret coercive measures, so that the regulations can be made clearer and more accurate. Unfortunately, we believe that this has not occurred to the desired extent. Over time, the regulatory framework has instead become increasingly difficult to oversee and complicated. This has also been repeatedly noted by several authorities and organizations.

Among other things, the Council on Legislation has expressed criticism and written that a very large number of changes to the provisions on secret coercive measures have been made and that the collective regulatory framework has consequently become very complicated. It has therefore also become difficult to obtain a unified picture of the legislation in the area and of the extent of the intrusion into personal integrity that individuals can be affected by. Against that background, the Council on Legislation has called for a collective review to be carried out in the near future, in light of Chapter 2, Section 6, second paragraph of the Instrument of Government and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of how secret coercive measures can be used. In such a review, it should of course also be possible to consider adjusting the conditions for the use of one or more secret coercive measures.

That a comprehensive review would be needed has also been pointed out by several other actors, for example Civil Rights Defenders, Centrum för rättvisa, and Stockholms tingsrätt.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet notes that the government has commissioned an investigator to evaluate the application of the expanded possibilities to use secret coercive measures and to map out the benefit they have brought to crime fighting in general. In the directives to the investigation, the government states that the regulation is difficult to oversee and complex and that there may therefore be a need to collect the rules on secret and preventive coercive measures into one law. The assignment is to be reported by May 29 this year at the latest.

We naturally welcome this investigation. At the same time, we question the government's intention with the assignment and whether it really is to strengthen the privacy perspective and the rule of law in the legislation – this because the same investigation has been tasked to review how the permit processes can be simplified and propose how the use of, for example, secret wiretapping and surveillance can be expanded.

In the investigation directives, it can be read, among other things, that the positions must be moved forward further regarding the legal conditions for using secret and preventive coercive measures. The investigation should therefore consider whether it is possible to achieve greater flexibility in the regulations on secret and preventive coercive measures, so that coercive measures can be used when it appears justified.

For the Green Party, it appears contradictory that the same investigation should both evaluate and expand the legislation. We see an obvious risk that the evaluation mandate will be hindered from proposing how the legislation should potentially be limited. An evaluation of the use of coercive measures must have full mandate to propose the regulations deemed necessary. It should not contain requirements that the use of secret and preventive coercive measures be expanded if such is not judged to be reasonable or necessary.

Furthermore, implementing new legislation after the evaluation has been completed risks making the completed evaluation meaningless because it could not take into account the outcome and consequences of the new legislation.

Miljöpartiet therefore considers that there are grounds for an announcement from the Riksdag that the government should, through a regular evaluation, ensure that the application of secret coercive measures is carried out in a legally secure and proportionate manner and that new legislation on secret coercive measures shall always meet high standards of legal certainty.

This is what our reservation 1 is about, and I therefore move for its approval.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 February.)

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