Faster prosecution of crimes
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
Vänsterpartiet welcomes the proposal's suggestion for faster prosecution by facilitating service of process, partial judgments, and more efficient handling of summary orders 1. Vänsterpartiet believes that the reform provides better quality in crime investigations as evidence is perishable 1. Vänsterpartiet argues, however, that the proposal risks leading to higher fine amounts and conflicts with the principle of legal certainty regarding equal treatment 1. Centerpartiet welcomes the reform to speed up prosecution and improve crime prevention work 2. Centerpartiet emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law principle that equal cases are judged equally 2. Centerpartiet believes that the proposal increases the risk that equal cases are judged differently and argues that existing rules in the Penal Code should be used to solve the problem 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the Left Party's, the Centre Party's and the Green Party's reservation under point 2.
The proposal in the bill is welcomed by the Left Party. The proposal in the bill aims to develop and make prosecution more efficient. Among the proposals are, among others, that the district courts are influenced to decide criminal cases expeditiously by facilitating partial service of process. One gets the opportunity to divide the handling of a prosecution, and partial judgments are enabled to a greater extent than today. Furthermore, a more efficient handling of summary orders is enabled.
The proposals are based on experiences from pilot projects with fast-track procedures in criminal cases, which it is now proposed should be made permanent and implemented throughout the country.
The reform entails important advantages, such as faster prosecution and better quality in the criminal investigations. Evidence is always a perishable commodity, and the faster we can reach a decision in a process, provided that we have a basis, the better.
At the same time, there is a problem here, and the Council on Legislation has expressed sharp criticism in its referral response regarding imposed fines in connection with dividing the processing if it concerns a summary conviction or a partial judgment if it is a traditional criminal case. In the committee's proposal, it is suggested that this should not be taken into account within the framework of a final decision.
The Left Party definitely agrees with the Council on Legislation's views. The Council on Legislation gives concrete examples of that the reform risks leading to significantly higher fine amounts if already imposed fines are not to be taken into account in the final decision.
The Council on Legislation writes quite sharply: "Particularly regarding summary orders, the proposed amendment would have significant consequences because in such orders it is almost always a question of a fine."
The Council on Legislation emphasizes the seriousness of the criticism further: "If the issue is left unresolved, the Council on Legislation sees no other possibility than to reject the referral's proposal in these parts."
I want to assert that the Council on Legislation's criticism is directed at a clear departure from an important principle of legal certainty, namely the principle of equal treatment. The same crime can now, in this proposal, lead to different penalties, which is contrary to the idea of equal treatment.
In the proposition, the government dismisses the problem by stating that the risk of these fines becoming disparate is relatively small. However, deliberately ignoring a central rule-of-law principle is unacceptable and risks undermining respect for the rule of law, but also the citizens' trust in both politics and the judiciary. A solution would therefore be, as the Council on Legislation also points out, to let the provisions be applicable even when it concerns fines, in a similar manner as with other penalties.
The Riksdag, we here in the chamber, have the power to enact laws. We as members have the political power, given by our voters. Four words can summarize this: Law is frozen politics.
But bad politics creates bad law, and it is our responsibility here in the chamber to consider and respect central rule-of-law principles in decisions on both small and large reforms. Equality before the law is an important such principle.
Ulrika Liljeberg (C)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the reservation.
This is a welcome reform that is now being made permanent and implemented throughout the country. In addition to good crime prevention work and a high clearance rate of crimes, rapid prosecution is both desirable and important for everyone involved.
We from the Center Party would like to see continued reforms and improvements within the legal area that meet the challenges we have as a society and where we use our common resources in the best way.
But at the same time, we in the Center Party will today, and continue to, safeguard the fundamental principles of the rule of law, that is, today the principle that similar cases shall be judged equally. At the same time as we are in favor of rationalizing and speeding up, it does not suit us as a rule of law to not simultaneously uphold the principles that are the basis for trust in the system. The underlying principle is that one shall receive a consolidated penalty for the crimes committed up until the judgment is pronounced. However, cases can, and shall, now be decided to a greater extent through partial judgments where one, so to speak, judges for crimes as they occur.
Without a valve to consider the consequences in the respective sub-parts, there is a risk that identical cases will be judged differently solely based on the choice of processing routine. Such discrepancies are usually neither understood nor appreciated by the public, and it is normal for new legislation to address and resolve such issues. But now, the proposal is instead to increase the risk of this.
The Council on Legislation points out, as we have heard, this in its opinion and strongly questions whether it is correct to proceed in that manner. The Council on Legislation states that one possible solution to this is to use the existing rules in Chapter 34 of the Penal Code by adding day-fines there. The problem was also raised in the investigation and in Brås evaluation of the pilot project. We believe that this should have been included in the new law.
I would like to conclude by pointing out that what we are proposing should not be confused with the so-called volume discount, which we believe should be reviewed, but this refers to the principle of law that equal cases should be treated equally.
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.