Response to interpellation 2023/24:6 on a reform of the lay assessor system
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a reform of the lay judge system. M considers an independent judiciary to be fundamental and that lay judges should be impartial 1. M argues that the current regulation is well-balanced 1 and that the parties ensure that people with good judgment receive the assignments 2. M advocates for a discussion on broadened recruitment 2 3 and looks forward to discussing the issues with the Nämndemännens Riksförbund 3. MP considers that there is a serious connection between the parties and the lay judges 4 and advocates for an investigation to decouple politics 5. MP argues that the lay judge assignment is seen as a consolation prize for party members 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.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I have been asked if I am prepared to appoint a parliamentary committee for the purpose of reforming the lay judge system and severing the ties between the political parties and the judiciary, and if I am prepared to take some other initiatives to change the regulatory framework surrounding lay judges.
Let me begin by emphasizing that an independent judiciary is one of the foundations of a democratic society. It is extremely important that the public feels confidence that the judges are independent and that there is no risk of, for example, political influence.
The requirement for independent and impartial courts and judges has been established to protect the individual citizen. The person whose case is examined in court should be able to feel secure that the matter will be handled according to current law and without influence from extraneous interests. Independence is guaranteed, among other things, by the fact that the Instrument of Government prescribes that no authority, nor the Riksdag, may decide how a court shall judge in an individual case or how a court shall otherwise apply a rule of law in an individual case.
Questions regarding the independence of the courts are important for the government. Earlier this year, I received the 2020 Constitutional Committee's report Enhanced protection for democracy and the independence of the courts. The report has been referred, and the consultation period has recently expired. Now, the work continues in the Government Offices with analyzing the proposals and moving forward.
Lay judges shall, just like the professional judges, be impartial and objective in their judgment. Over the years, several measures have been taken to clarify that the mandate of a lay judge is not a political mandate. All lay judges shall undergo training before they begin their service, and the recruitment and timing for the election of lay judges have been separated from the general elections.
The Government has, prior to the 2023 lay judge election, tasked the Courts Administration with carrying out information initiatives for prospective lay judges and nominating and electing bodies in order to achieve a broader recruitment. The assignment is to be reported in March 2024.
As Rasmus Ling mentions, an investigator has also been tasked with reviewing certain issues linked to the lay judge mandate. The mandate did not include reviewing the nomination process itself. Before the summer, the investigator presented their conclusions in the memorandum *A review of certain issues regarding public lay judges*. The investigator makes the assessment that the current regulation of lay judges' suitability is purposeful and well-balanced, and that there is also no need for further measures to clarify that the lay judge mandate is not a political mandate. The memorandum has also been referred, and the consultation period expires on November 1 this year.
At present, it is not relevant to appoint a parliamentary committee to reform the lay judge system. However, I look forward to meeting representatives from all parliamentary parties in October to discuss the recruitment of lay judges. I have also invited representatives from the National Association of Lay Judges to the meeting. I hope for a productive meeting with valuable discussions.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
We in Sweden stand in the middle of a serious crisis. Such a question is a bit far from that, but there are many important issues on the Council of State's table. There are also reasons to discuss the questions that are more long-term, and court issues and processes are, after all, a central part of the rule of law.
To begin with, I want to say in this context that we in Miljöpartiet do not in itself oppose that we have lay judges in Sweden, i.e., that it is ordinary people who are involved in judging and who are not legally trained. It is something that we have had in Sweden for a long time and which works and which there are positive things about. One example of that is that I believe it makes the court more understandable, if I put it that way, and that it is not solely legal chancery Swedish that is spoken. The laypeople - the lay judges - and the judge discuss, which has positive consequences.
But there are problems, as we see it, with the order that we have. One can state that a problem is the composition of the lay judge corps. The average age is very high, and the average age is close to the retirement age. It is admittedly very good that one makes use of the experience of the elderly – the seniors. There are many other parts of society that should get better at that. But that there are so few younger people and people of middle age makes the representation skewed.
I believe that one should also review other parts regarding the conditions for lay judges. It concerns compensation, how long periods one needs to serve, and that it is difficult to take leave from work and other commitments.
But the biggest problem we see in the system is how the lay judges are appointed, that it is the parties that in practice are those who decide who should be lay judges. Formally, decisions are made by municipal councils around the country, but it would not be seen as positive by the parties if another party interfered in who is nominated from a party. It is usually a club matter. We think that lay judges should be appointed in another way and that this should be decoupled from the parties and politics.
We have, from our party at times, done an active work and appointed lay judges who are not members of the party in order to achieve a wider distribution. It has worked well. As long as we have the system we have, we think it would be good if more parties were to do so. But there are still parties that have requirements for membership in order for one to be eligible as a lay judge, i.e., internal rules.
But when it comes to the problem of the parties appointing lay judges, it becomes a political connection. But regardless of how many educational initiatives one has – which I think is good – and how much one works with this, there will be a connection between the parties and the lay judges. This means that in cases where lay judges make mistakes, which happens from time to time, and trials need to be redone and so on, it is the parties that have to be held accountable, for example in the media. We therefore believe that the investigator reached an incorrect conclusion when he suggested that no changes need to be made. We believe that the government needs to review this.
My question is: Does the Minister for Justice see any problems with the connection that nevertheless exists between the political parties and the lay judges?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for a question that is very important for our justice system, for our rule of law and, of course, for the legitimacy of the courts as well as for the independence and the integrity of the courts' judgments.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we are in a very serious security situation and that it, of course, occupies all the time for very many. It does not prevent it from being important to also maintain the broad perspective and to have the bandwidth to, so to speak, care for the justice system as a whole. An expression of this is the government's budget. A record investment is being made in the justice system, from 69 billion kronor to 90 billion kronor within the span of three years. There is no doubt that the police, the Security Service, and the Prison and Probation Service are prioritized in this entirety. But investments are being made in the justice system as a whole. Not least the courts must also, in the critical situation the country finds itself in, have the right resources to be able to meet their important missions and tasks in the rule of law.
Regarding these issues, I want to point out the parliamentary inquiry that we are now handling, where all eight parties in the Riksdag agree on a long series of proposals. One of them is to strengthen the independence of the courts. As I said in my introduction, the inquiry has been referred. Now we are working on the issues in the Government Offices. And I truly look forward to keeping all eight parties together regarding important reforms concerning the independence of the courts in the future.
This investigation did not look at the lay element - the lay judge element. I want to say first that I, like Rasmus Ling, as I understood the question, for a number of different reasons see great value in having lay judges in our courts. It gives the courts a civic anchoring, and I believe it can provide civic perspectives even though the law, of course, is to be applied impartially and equally for everyone. Much is also about making what is done in the courts understandable, not just for those who are immediately affected but also for a broad public and the general legal awareness. It is therefore the first thing, that it is very central for me and the government to safeguard a lay judge element in our courts. Then one can always discuss exactly how it should be designed in practice and in different instances. But this is a very important principled starting point.
Rasmus Ling asked if I see any problems with it being the parties that appoint the lay judges. I think it is quite simple to identify risks with this. One risk is, of course, that intra-party considerations would take precedence over merits or qualifications when appointing lay judges. We have seen examples of political parties, as Rasmus Ling touched upon, when pressure arises regarding individual judgments, acting against lay judges in a way that naturally is not compatible with the idea that lay judges do not have loyalty to parties but with their mandate as judges. They must themselves be accountable for their judgments.
I think it can be seen that there are some risks and problems. They must be managed, and I believe that can be done in different ways. The investigator has, as I mentioned, come up with a number of proposals in this part and points out, for example, that one could consider that the person who has a lay judge assignment does not have other political positions of trust.
I believe that a discussion should be had with the parties regarding a broadened recruitment and a reminder should be given that a person does not need to be a party member or have a mandate for a party to be a lay judge.
I also believe that the parties have a positive function. I do not really see any other structure in society that could as carefully ensure that it is people with good judgment and qualifications who are given the assignments. I therefore conclude that the parties should retain the task.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It is still positive that the Minister sees that there can be problems – I am underlining them. As said, there have been situations where lay judges have made mistakes which have resulted in the justice system suffering great damage. I do not in any way want to defend parties that in those situations have intervened and almost given instructions to the lay judges on how they should act. On the other hand, I see that there is an inherent problem when something is highlighted and the party that nominated someone is blamed. Consequently, one becomes more inclined to have greater control and less inclined to appoint non-members as lay judges.
This is the inherent problem. Then, the parties must, of course, act responsibly in cases where mistakes were made, because mistakes were made and will be made regardless of the system. All parties have at some point appointed lay judges who have not acted in the way they should have.
The Minister of Justice raised how the lay judges could be appointed instead. We are open to discussing this. I have not conducted any independent public inquiry, but I see that there are other important assignments in society that are not positions of trust but have that character. For example, an assessment takes place when lay judges are appointed by the guardianship boards in the municipalities. In that case, it is not the parties that nominate, but it is citizens who are to do this.
Families who offer to become foster homes are something that has a different character. There, it is the social services that decide, and there is a regulatory framework. One could give the Courts Administration or some other instance the task of designing a system for the recruitment of citizens.
Let us have an investigation that looks at how this could look, because I believe it is extremely essential that one moves away from the connection between the parties and those who judge in court. It is not only Miljöpartiet that thinks so, but also Centerpartiet and Liberalerna have had proposals to change this. Even Advokatsamfundet thinks that the connection to the parties is incorrect and that the lay judges should not be appointed by political bodies.
Mr. Speaker! I am nevertheless positive that the Minister for Justice has invited all parties to hold a discussion on recruitment. The lay judges for the next four years have just been appointed. The procedure for this has been changed so that it does not occur directly after an election but some time after, which is an improvement. We from Miljöpartiet will have a representative, and other parliamentary parties will also have one. I also heard that the Lay Judges Association will be there.
Our preliminary position is clear: We believe that such an investigation should be commissioned. The arguments for this are strong. I hope that both the government and other parties can take this to heart so that this issue can be reviewed.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the contribution.
In the current situation, as stated, it is not feasible to appoint an inquiry into this. I believe that the parties jointly have an interest in discussing how the system we have can be developed, strengthened, and improved, also in the very important aspects that Rasmus Ling highlights. There have been examples of parties behaving inappropriately in relation to individual lay judges, perhaps under mass media pressure. I believe that the parties should jointly discuss how to ensure high integrity once lay judges have been given their assignments, and that the relationship between the parties and the lay judges should in no way color or influence the judicial activities.
Rasmus Ling himself took up several examples of how Miljöpartiet works with the recruitment of lay judges. I believe the parties have an interest in discussing these issues with each other. What I perceive that Rasmus Ling wants to achieve – a broadened recruitment and an even broader representation in the lay judge corps – could naturally also be achieved through the parties, depending on how the parties choose to conduct the recruitment and nomination activities.
I see, as I said, very much forward to meeting all the parliamentary parties later this autumn. I think it is important that this discussion is held together with the Nämndemännens Riksförbund, and it is therefore very positive that they will be present at this meeting. I am convinced that the issues that Rasmus Ling now raised will be central to that discussion and that Miljöpartiet's input will be very valuable contributions to the conversation and the exchange between the parties.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is, as said, positive that this meeting will take place. I look forward to seeing what comes out of it. I hope that there are more than us who see the problems with how the outcome is in certain ways and that the construction itself involves built-in problems.
I also believe that the parties could achieve a more broadened recruitment. However, we can see that the result over time is that they have not succeeded. The average age is still around the retirement age, which makes the connection to other groups in society significantly weaker.
As I said earlier, I think it was a good change that the selection of lay judges was moved to a later point in time than when all other committee assignments in municipalities are distributed. There is, however, still an aspect of that the lay judge assignment is seen, in its own right, as a position of trust – i.e., a political assignment – because the lay judges are appointed by the parties. It is non-political, and there are trainings where this is established. Nevertheless, situations can arise where party members who would have wanted a political assignment but who, in competition with others, did not get it, are instead appointed as lay judges as a consolation prize. This is an arrangement that I do not think is good.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me again thank Rasmus Ling for raising the question. I think it is important that in a situation where the serious threats to our internal security from natural causes take up a lot of power, resources, and focus, we also have sufficient bandwidth to discuss issues of long-term importance for the entire justice system and our democratic rule of law, and the question of whether the lay judges truly belong there.
I am pleased that the government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, has presented a budget where we make record-breaking investments in the justice system and long-term care of the entire justice system. I am pleased that the eight parliamentary parties agree, in the constitutional committee I referred to earlier, to strengthen the independence of the courts. I believe that for Sweden's part, these will be historical reforms aimed at further strengthening the independence of judges and courts.
I welcome, as I have said, this discussion and the conversations we are to have between all parties and with the Association of Lay Judges (Nämndemännens Riksförbund) further ahead this autumn. There is no doubt that the inclusion of lay judges is important in our courts, and the risks that Rasmus Ling has highlighted regarding integrity and independence in the current order are worthy of being taken very seriously.
I assume that this will be an important theme in our discussion later this autumn, and I look forward to it and am certain that the parties can jointly find good ways forward to secure a layperson's involvement with a high legitimacy among the citizens and a great integrity in relation to the political parties regarding the judicial activities.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.