Strengthened obligation to repay in criminal cases
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns tightening the obligation to repay for convicted criminals in order to protect state resources and ensure that crime does not pay 1. M advocates that the repayment amounts should be doubled and that the rule on reduction should be tightened so that the convicted person bears a larger share of the costs for a public defender 1. M argues that the proposal is well-balanced and that ability to pay is still a fundamental criterion 1 2. V opposes the proposal and argues that it is a class contempt that affects the economically vulnerable 3 4. V claims that the proposal risks increasing indebtedness, hindering reintegration into society 5 and violating the European Convention 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! Tighten the obligation to repay in criminal cases! Yes, it is high time that the obligation to repay in criminal cases is tightened, because the state's costs for public defenders and other legal assistants in criminal cases are significant and have increased over many years. It is about protecting the state's resources, but it is also about the perpetrators bearing the costs of their own crimes to a greater extent by taking a larger share of the bill.
The starting point must be that the person convicted of a crime is obliged to compensate the state for the costs of a public defender. In a conviction, the main rule today is that the convicted person shall compensate the cost of their public defender with regard to, among other things, the convicted person's economic and personal circumstances. Despite this, it is usually only a small part of the costs that is paid back to the state. So we cannot have that, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, the government proposes that those convicted of a crime shall compensate the state's costs to a greater extent than today. The government notes that a tightening of the rules should be made in a way that means the obligation to repay is in proportion to the convicted person's ability to pay, even when it concerns persons with low incomes. This is done by maintaining the link to the legal aid fee but making a recalculation of the repayment amounts for persons in all income brackets.
The Government proposes that the repayment amounts shall be doubled. The convicted person may be liable to repay an amount that is twice as large as what he or she would have had to pay in legal aid fees. Furthermore, the possibility to reduce the repayment amount shall be limited through requirements for specific reasons.
The obligation to repay is an important part of the justice system. A tightening contributes to restoring confidence in the justice system with a focus on the fact that crime does not pay. Vänsterpartiet has in its motion requested a rejection of the bill on the grounds that the proposal will hit people who are already economically vulnerable and that their debt burden will increase. They argue that the proposal would lead to increased difficulties in reintegrating into society. That may sound nice and humane, which I have full respect for. But we must not forget that it is convicted criminals, criminals, that it is about.
It is clearly evident that the government is aware that a tightening of the mitigation rule will lead to an increased debt burden for convicted persons. One advantage of how the proposal is designed, to tighten the mitigation rule through a requirement of special reasons, is that the convicted person's ability to pay will, in the same way as today, be a fundamental assessment criterion. There will, for example, be room for mitigation in cases where the defense costs are so high that the main rule of full repayment obligation would lead to an unreasonably burdensome repayment requirement. Such a solution thus limits the risks of a significantly increased indebtedness among convicted persons.
A tightening is therefore not judged to hinder the reintegration of convicted persons into society to any noticeable extent. The purpose of the proposal is to achieve a tightening of the cost responsibility for the person convicted of a crime. In that case, a certain increased indebtedness of convicted persons can be tolerated.
Some referral bodies, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out that the income limit for legal aid and the legal aid fees have remained unchanged for a long time and that they are not really adjusted to today's income levels. The Government agrees with this, and it is argued that there may be reason to return to the question of whether the income limit for legal aid and the legal aid fees should be raised.
Even though the calculations are associated with a large degree of uncertainty, it is actually clear that the proposal could mean that the revenue gains are many times greater than the cost increases for the Swedish Enforcement Authority and the County Administrative Board for Legal Aid. The Government assesses that the proposal leads to increased revenues for the state of approximately 55 million kronor per year.
Mr. Speaker! There is simply a proposal on the table that is purposefully designed and well-considered. We safeguard the state's resources, and the perpetrator will, to a greater extent, have to bear the costs of their own crime.
Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and the government's proposition and against the Left Party's motion. Step by step, we ensure that there is more sense and reason in the justice system.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! I want to turn to Charlotte Nordström to get a further explanation as to how it is thought that the proposal strengthens the state finances when it concerns the questioned revenues of 55 million.
From my perspective, this is a sign of a class contempt that affects those who are already under severe economic strain. I have no objection to those who have resources paying for their costs in legal proceedings after a crime, but the question is how far we should draw the boundaries and what further consequences it will have when the limits of the Legal Aid Act are hopefully changed.
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Speaker for that I am given a reply in this rostrum for the first time. It is a bit unusual, I must say!
First, it was the economic part. Every krona we can get for the state's finances is a responsible policy. It has followed me through all the years of my political career, and therefore I feel secure in this.
The focus here is not just about the state's resources, but it is about that who commits a crime also must bear their costs. It is crystal clear to me. It was, Mr. Speaker, a simple answer to the member's question.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Charlotte Nordström! That was what I expected given our different political starting points.
I see that this is a top-down approach, which affects people who often already have economic problems. That is how the construction is here.
I would like to see that we could increase the revenues in the state treasury in other ways. There are opportunities to adjust the tax system and so on so that we get resources for public interventions. It could even be enough for preventive measures so that we avoid getting additional criminals. So why is this the way to strengthen the state treasury?
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! I always work with heart and brain, the member, and have done so.
In this case, it is also about the economic parts - every penny, many small streams. We must have cost-effective public finances, and this is a part of that. I do not see it as a major concern.
The member is concerned about the economically vulnerable. We hope and believe in our policy. The crime prevention work shall be such that one shall not commit that crime. That is our objective, and I know that it is also the member's objective. It is about a well-balanced and sound policy with this proposal.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! The proposal is therefore about increased restitution that shall affect the person who has been convicted of a crime. I move that the Riksdag approve the Left Party's motion and reject this proposal from the government.
I think it is very crass to claim that this tightening would contribute to the state finances. It is mentioned several times in the bill. What is it that is intended? Yes, as just mentioned here, it is about expectations - which many question, moreover - that it would become an income to the state treasury of an additional 55 million.
Who is affected? Yes, the proposal to double the reimbursement amounts concerns persons with an economy that means they have a basis according to the Legal Aid Act that does not exceed 260,000 kronor. It is somewhat complicated calculations - it is income adjusted for responsibilities in some other parts.
How many people is this about? Yes, it is not a very small part - it is approximately one-third of the adult population who would be affected by these rules.
The Chancellor of Justice is one of the referral bodies that argues that the proposal only hits those worst off in society.
According to the Stockholm District Court, the proposal is problematic in that it does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I agree with the criticism on that point as well, as it can be questioned whether this repayment obligation is compatible with the right to a fair trial and the right to a defense counsel in criminal cases according to the European Convention.
The Swedish Enforcement Authority is one of the agencies that argues it is doubtful whether this will contribute to increased revenues for the state. What is weighed against the potential increased payments is that the state's costs for claims and enforcement will increase.
There are several referral bodies, including Göta hovrätt, Svea hovrätt and several district courts, that have similar questions, as well as Stockholm University. One is not at all certain that it will result in a net gain for the state.
I also believe that the government's proposal risks being counterproductive, as it could lead to more convicted persons with already limited economic resources becoming indebted and facing increased difficulties in reintegrating. Brå highlights this and argues that it could make it harder both to obtain a rental agreement and to find employment.
In the question regarding leniency, there are certain possibilities for positive assessment. But one wants to tighten it so that it becomes harder to achieve leniency. There must be special reasons. Partially, one builds in a circular argument here by saying that it would be an advantage if one continues to build on previous principles regarding ability to pay while simultaneously tightening that requirement. It is formulated a bit strangely, but oh well.
That proposal, which I can think is partially positive, means that one can reduce the amount entirely or partially if there are special reasons. But they are sharply formulated. One must look at how the relationship between the crimes and the obligation to repay looks. It must be possible to avoid facing further difficulties in paying damages. This shall not affect those who are under 18 or have a mental disorder, nor shall it affect those who are granted a waiver of penalty. Certain groups are thus somewhat protected from this reform.
But there are several referral bodies that reject the proposal or are very doubtful: Göta hovrätt, Göteborgs tingsrätt and Justitiekanslern, which I have mentioned, as well as Lunds universitet, Solna tingsrätt, Stockholms tingsrätt and Svea hovrätt.
Brottsofferjouren, the Chancellor of Justice, and Umeå District Court consider that the proposal could worsen the possibilities to pay damages. Some also fear that it will lead to deficiencies in the process and legal certainty such that some will choose to waive their right to a public defender.
Other referral bodies reject and are hesitant. JO, Lund University, Stockholm University, the Swedish Bar Association, and Umeå District Court consider that the obligation to repay should not be tightened for criminological reasons. If there are reasons to further mark a distancing from the criminal acts, it should, according to the district court, appropriately be done within the framework of criminal law. Stockholm University marks similar boundaries. They do not want fees to resemble punishment.
I want to conclude by again moving for the proposal to be rejected. I cannot accept a criminal policy that hits people who are already economically vulnerable in the way that the government's proposal will do.
Tightened repayment obligation in criminal cases
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.