Response to interpellation 2024/25:351 on service of process and prescription of crimes
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M wants to take measures so that criminals cannot avoid punishment by hiding 1. M wants to implement a shift in perspective towards crime victims and community protection through faster prosecution, accessible disclosure, and secret coercive measures 1. M proposes that crimes that can be punished with life imprisonment and sentenced prison terms should never be prescribed 1. M confirms that freezing of prescription and criminalization of hiding are possible ways forward 2. M believes there is broad support regarding the consequences of persons hiding from accountability 3. S believes it is offensive that one can avoid punishment by hiding from disclosure 4. S proposes that hiding from disclosure should be criminalized, that the prescription period should be frozen during the disclosure period, and that digital disclosure should be introduced 4 5. S argues that the government voted no to these proposals 4. S believes the issues are very urgent 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.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho has asked me if I intend to take measures so that people cannot escape punishment by hiding from justice.
The answer to that question is yes, and I would like to elaborate further on in what way.
As background, the government is restructuring the criminal justice policy in large. We are doing this to achieve a fundamental shift in perspective from an entirely too one-sided focus on the perpetrator to a focus on crime victims and societal protection. A central part of that 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, of course, the victims' redress.
The government is also taking a long series of measures to ensure that those who commit crimes cannot evade justice. One such measure is the working method called faster prosecution, which has clearly reduced the scope for the suspect to prevent or delay the legal process. It has made it possible to have a court review in very close connection to the crime, among other things through the new method of service called accessible service. In June last year, the government decided that the pilot project with faster prosecution also for lawbreakers under 18 years of age shall continue and be expanded throughout the country.
We have also made it possible for law enforcement authorities to use covert coercive measures when executing various types of arrests. We have, of course, done this so that persons attempting to evade investigation, prosecution, and punishment can be located in a faster and more efficient manner.
The government has also tasked a number of central authorities with strengthening the international work against organized crime. We have done this in order to increase the prosecution of criminals who hide abroad and from there orchestrate shootings, bombings, and other crimes committed on our streets. In all our contacts abroad, we work to increase the pressure so that Swedish criminals staying in other countries shall be extradited, prosecuted, and deprived of their criminal profits.
I would also like to point out that as recently as December, the government submitted a bill to the Riksdag containing proposals regarding the so-called criminal prescription legislation (prop. 2024/25:59). The proposals are extensive in nature. We ensure that more of those who have committed crimes do not escape responsibility due to prescription. This means, 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 are therefore taking a number of measures to make it harder to hide from justice.
When it comes to disclosure, the government has already initiated such work. Among other things, we intend to appoint an inquiry which, for example, shall review the possibilities for more efficient disclosure, and that also includes the question of digital disclosure. The question of criminalizing evading disclosure and the question of freezing the limitation period during the disclosure period will be handled in upcoming processes.
For me and the government, it is a self-evident matter that criminals should not be able to escape punishment by staying away, and it is of course welcome that more parties are engaged in those issues.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I think it feels a bit strange to stand here and discuss the sharing of data today. It is admittedly a quite important issue, but just one week after the terrible act in Örebro, I believe that not only I, but also the Minister for Justice and many others, are above all filled and weighed down by the situation we find ourselves in in our country and the terrible thing that took place.
The machinery of society must, however, be kept running, despite everything, and this also applies to the Riksdag's work and our opportunity to debate current issues. The issue of disclosure, which this interpellation concerns, is a pressing one. Today, it is such that one can systematically avoid disclosure until the prescription period has expired and in that way avoid receiving a sentence. It sounds almost made up, but it is absolutely true. Not least Sveriges Radio's P4 Halland has demonstrated this in a solid investigation.
This is naturally offensive. Not least, it is a mockery of all those crime victims who do not receive justice. It is obvious that time has run out now regarding the regulatory framework - that it is no longer fully adapted to today's society. We can also state that Swedish authorities today are making great efforts to reach people who deliberately evade justice. The regulatory framework must be changed so that the deficiencies can be closed, and more effective tools are needed.
In view of this, we Social Democrats have proposed three measures. Firstly, we have proposed a criminalization of evading service of process. It should simply be a crime in itself. Secondly, we have proposed that the prescription period shall be frozen during the period of service of process so that it will not be profitable to hide and in that way avoid one's punishment. Thirdly, we have proposed that the possibility for digital service of process shall be introduced, for example by allowing service of process to be considered as having occurred after a document has been sent to a digital mailbox.
When we placed these proposals on the Justice Committee's table, we Social Democrats had good hopes of being able to gather a broad majority in the Riksdag to move forward with the proposals that have truly come to light recently - but no. All the Tidö parties said no to all three of our proposals, even though the Minister for Justice has expressed in various media that he shares the problem picture. We also heard that just now in the read response, where the Minister for Justice even answered yes to the question of whether he wants to do something about the problem. It is of course pleasing, but still we receive no clear answers.
Where is the shoe actually pinching? Is it because the proposals come from us Social Democrats that you do not want to take them further? It seems to be a pattern, at least. Much of what the Minister for Justice mentioned in his answer is something we completely agree on. We Social Democrats have started some of it and let the current government complete it. Other things have been initiated by the government itself, and we have voted for those proposals. But the government has voted no to all of our proposals – all of them!
Madam Speaker! Now it seems, in fact, that the Minister for Justice is partially opening up for a more positive stance than his colleagues in the Riksdag. I would therefore like to ask again what the plan actually is. What are the upcoming processes we are to hear about?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Teresa Carvalho for the opportunity to discuss these issues today, even though what Teresa Carvalho says of course occurs in a situation where the attention of a large part of society and also a large part here in the Riksdag is directed elsewhere. At the same time, we have today managed to gather and honor those who lost their lives in the horrific mass shooting in Örebro through the minute of silence held also in this chamber, and we have also discussed the issues together with the police commissioner in the Committee on Justice. We are, therefore, able to do both.
We shall give the terrible event in Örebro all the attention that it deserves in itself, that the affected have the right to expect, and that the surrounding society expects us to give it. It is, of course, both about taking care of the concrete situation and about, when we look forward, asking ourselves what this means for our society as a whole and what we shall do with it.
None of this excludes us from discussing other issues, which we are doing today. I completely agree with the problem picture being drawn in this discussion and with the importance of doing something about this.
The background to why the votes were cast as they were in the committee is that all the issues that have been raised are subject to ongoing processes in the Government Offices. These processes cover all the issues that the Social Democrats have pointed out: the digital service of process, the criminalization of evading service, and the prescription issues. I have today announced that several of these issues will be included in an investigation that we will appoint. The other issues are also subject to preparation in the Government Offices. I will return to exactly which processes they will be handled in.
We are in complete agreement about doing something about this. The government is too. If there are more thoughts on how one can approach this behavior in different ways, which draws very many resources in the justice system and which is also offensive in relation to crime victims and to the surrounding society, I am of course prepared to listen to that as well.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the continued answer.
It has now been a year since a number of authorities approached the government with a petition regarding part of the proposals that we Social Democrats have presented, specifically the part concerning the possibility of digital service of process. I perceive from the Minister for Justice that there is an openness and perhaps even a plan. It has indeed been a year, and I am beginning to wonder how much time the government needs to deliberate further before moving forward with investigation directives and other matters. But we can leave that be – I am very pleased that the government clearly and explicitly states that it is ready to proceed with this part.
However, it only concerns the part regarding the digital distribution. When it comes to the other two proposals – to criminalize evading and to freeze the prescription period – the government and the Minister for Justice are significantly more vague. They do not refer these issues to the commission. Those who took part in the answer and listened carefully to what the Minister for Justice just said noticed that it is considerably more cryptic. There, reference was made to other upcoming processes.
If one now intends to appoint an inquiry to approach one of these three parts and address that part of the problem, why can the Minister for Justice then not clearly and distinctly say that the other two parts shall also be included in the inquiry? To which upcoming processes shall the proposal on criminalization and the proposal on freezing the prescription period be referred?
I have two follow-up questions.
One concerns the digital service of process and the investigation that the government is now promising. When can we expect it to be in place?
The second follow-up question is: What are these upcoming processes? Unfortunately, it sounds like it is more of a creative way for the Minister of Justice to say: We have no such plans but would preferably not say it straight out, because our plans are not that concrete.
I would like clarity from the Minister for Justice on this issue. I believe I have received a clear and distinct message that the ambition is to appoint an inquiry with the intention of enabling digital service of process. This is good, and I thank you for that. I would, however, like even more clarity regarding whether the government wants to criminalize the behavior of evading service of process. And does the government want to freeze the statute of limitations, so that one cannot hide and thus avoid punishment? In which process and in which inquiry will the government handle this if the answer to my questions is yes? Here is the follow-up question: When will the inquiry, or the processes that the Minister for Justice referred to, be in place?
I am sorry, but one cannot both eat the cake and keep it. I would like to receive a clarification from the Minister for Justice.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! It became a rather complicated question regarding the procedural aspects. If I may bring the discussion back to the societal problems, I can state that what I am now indicating is that we are working properly with the proposals submitted in the petition which indeed came from a number of authorities. It concerns quite intrusive and important reforms regarding the distribution of shares.
It is about being able to manage partial payments at state service offices and requesting assistance from other authorities in order to be able to carry out partial payments. It is about accessibility for partial payments as a condition for certain payments from the welfare systems. It is also about developing the functionality in different ways on different platforms where these issues are handled.
We have decided exactly how these issues will be handled in the investigation that we intend to appoint. I will not report the exact time for this today, but I intend to share that information when we do. There is, however, no doubt that work is underway in light of the petition mentioned earlier.
Teresa Carvalho inquired about my intention regarding the other issues, namely the freezing of the statute of limitations and the criminalization of evading. I think the problems highlighted are of such a nature that the intention must be to address them. Exactly how we are to address them is perhaps something that remains to be seen, but that both freezing of the statute of limitations and criminalization are possible ways forward, I am prepared to say in places.
I will return to exactly how we are now working with the issues and intend to come back to them so that the Riksdag can receive a thoroughly worked-out basis to take a position on what it entails.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! I also want to return to the societal problem. The big problem here is that today one can avoid punishment by evading service of process so that the crime manages to become time-barred. This is a mockery of all crime victims out there. This is exploited by tens of thousands of Swedes, which costs society an incredible amount of money due to stayed proceedings and so on.
Even worse is that violent men can evade service of process to drag out separation proceedings, which places vulnerable women in an even more vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation.
This is a very pressing issue to address. That is what we Social Democrats want to do, and that is why we have placed three proposals before the Committee on Justice. We propose the criminalization of evading service of process. We propose the freezing of the statute of limitations during the service period, so that one cannot wait for the statute of limitations to expire and thus avoid their punishment. We also want to introduce digital service of process.
The Tidö parties have voted no to this here in the Riksdag. I still want to ask the Minister for Justice if he shares the opinion that these proposals are not the right way to go. I hear a somewhat different tone from the Minister for Justice. I hear an openness to tackle these problems, even if we unfortunately cannot get more concrete information on whether there is an intention to proceed in the parts that do not involve digital service of process.
I thank you for the announcement that an investigation will be conducted aimed at enabling digital service of process. Then we simply continue to discuss the criminalization of evading service and the freezing of the statute of limitations, as this is a very pressing issue.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Teresa Carvalho once again for the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I think it is excellent that they are being raised in various contexts, including in the Justice Committee's work, and that there is such a broad consensus regarding the insight into what terrible consequences it has when individuals evade accountability when it comes to serious crime, as well as how morally offensive this is. It can have a double-hitting effect for crime victims and perhaps also for the surrounding society's trust in the justice system's effectiveness. I welcome that there is a broad consensus on this.
Teresa Carvalho, in my opinion, has no other tone, but it is quite clear messages in substance. All the questions the Social Democrats highlight today are subjects of processes in the government's work. I have taken note of when it comes to the digital service side and the conclusion that exists there in the form of a petition from a number of agencies, exactly how we intend to proceed with this process. I will also return publicly on how we are working with the other issues.
The reason there was not a broader support in the committee was not because anyone rejected the questions in substance, but because the processes are already ongoing in the Government Offices.
As was said: less focus on the perpetrator and more focus on the crime victim and on the surrounding society's legitimate claim to protection against serious crime. This is a shift in perspective that also has its relevance in this context, so let us make it easier to reach all those who evade justice, among other things in the way we have discussed today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.