Response to interpellation 2025/26:483 on the application of the consent laws and legal certainty
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns legal certainty and the application of the consent law, particularly regarding the crime of negligent rape. M supports the 2018 reform and emphasizes that sex must be voluntary 1. M argues that the legislation in general works well, but acknowledges that Brå has identified legal certainty problems and difficulties in applying the negligence crimes 1 2 3. M advocates that the courts should create clarity through landmark rulings 3 4. - argues that the government must act rather than just follow the legal development because Brå has already identified the problems 5 6. - emphasizes that legal certainty is a prerequisite for the legislation's legitimacy and requires clear boundaries for criminal liability 6 7.
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! Katja Nyberg has asked me a number of questions regarding how I view the legal certainty issues that the Crime Prevention Council has identified concerning the crime of negligent rape, whether today's regulation is sufficiently clear and predictable from a legal certainty perspective, and whether the government intends to take any measures to strengthen legal certainty.
The government stands behind the 2018 sexual offense reform, which means that the line between a non-punishable and a punishable act is whether participation in the sexual act has been voluntary or not. That sexual acts must be voluntary to be legal is a self-evident matter for me.
Through the reform, it has been clarified that every human being has an unconditional right to personal and sexual integrity and sexual self-determination. Being subjected to a sexual act against one's will always constitutes a serious violation, even if violence or threats have not been used.
The reform has had several positive effects. Brå highlights in its report (Brå 2025:3), among other things, that people who have been subjected to sexual assault to a lesser extent take the blame for what has happened and feel they have the opportunity to obtain legal redress by reporting the crime. I think that is good. The reform also sends an important normalizing signal in society that all sex must be voluntary.
Within the framework of the 2018 reform, a special liability for negligence was also introduced for certain serious forms of sexual offenses. Two new offenses were introduced: negligent rape and negligent sexual assault.
The sexual offense legislation that we have now, which is based on voluntariness, takes its starting point in that the person who wants to have sexual intercourse with someone else must ensure that there is a mutual will for such sexual intercourse. This means that there is a requirement of diligence, and it is natural that the person who is grossly negligent regarding the circumstance that the other person is not participating voluntarily can also be held criminally liable for it.
Then, of course, it is important that the legal review is legally secure. I have taken note of Brå's report, which the government requested, and the concerns that the authority raises regarding negligent rape. What Brå points out is that the new crime of negligent rape is difficult to apply and entails legal certainty problems. Brå also emphasizes that it is of importance that more guiding decisions come from higher instances. I follow the legal developments closely and do not rule out that the issues will need to be further clarified in the future.
Katja Nyberg (-)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the answer.
I note that the Minister for Justice and I agree on a very important starting point in the debate: Brå has identified legal certainty problems regarding the crime of negligent rape. The Minister for Justice states that the crime is difficult to apply and causes legal certainty problems, which in itself is a serious observation. We are talking here about criminal law and about a crime that belongs to the most serious and most stigmatized in our legislation, and then the requirements for clarity, predictability, and legal certainty must be very high.
I also want to be clear that this debate is not about questioning the principle of voluntariness. Sexual acts should, of course, be voluntary.
The consent reform has had positive effects, among other things for the victims' opportunity for redress and through the normalizing signal that all sex must be voluntary. A piece of legislation can, however, have an important and legitimate purpose and at the same time contain a provision that needs to be reviewed and clarified from a legal certainty perspective. It is precisely that discussion we must be able to have.
The Minister for Justice says that more guiding rulings in higher instances are needed and that he follows the legal developments closely and does not rule out that the issues need to be further clarified in the future. But if the government already knows that a penal provision is difficult to apply and entails legal certainty problems, is it then sufficient to wait for the legal situation to gradually clear through new judgments? In practice, this means that courts and individuals must bear the consequences of the uncertainty that Brå has already pointed out in the meantime.
Rule of law does not mean choosing between the rights of the crime victim and the rights of the accused. A constitutional state must manage both simultaneously. The person who is subjected to a sexual crime shall, of course, be taken seriously and receive legal redress. The person who is accused of a crime shall simultaneously be able to understand what is required for criminal liability and be able to trust that the law is applied in a predictable manner.
That is why I react to the wording that the Minister for Justice does not rule out that the questions may need to be further clarified. This is not the first time the issue has been clarified. Brå followed up on the consent law already in 2020 and then pointed out application problems and risks to legal certainty. Now, five years later, Brå has, on the government's assignment, followed up on the law a second time. Brå notes that the problems have not disappeared and that the crime of negligent rape is still difficult to apply and entails legal certainty problems.
My question to the Minister of Justice is simple: If we agree that there are issues with legal certainty, what else needs to happen before the government considers there to be reason to act?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katja Nyberg, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue today!
Actually, I can make myself quite brief. I think Katja Nyberg highlights an important issue. On one hand, it is a strength that there is a very broad consensus around the Swedish legislation in this area and that consent is the basic agreement. On the other hand, we of course have a strong common interest that this should function in a legally secure manner.
I have no concrete information to provide today on exactly how the issue shall be taken forward. I do, however, want to emphasize that Brå confirms that the legislation in general works very well. That some specific aspects are being pointed out for the second time now, particularly regarding the crime of negligence and the issues of legal certainty, means that we will, of course, look more closely at the issue at an appropriate time and in an appropriate format, but I have no concrete information today on exactly when or how it shall take place.
Katja Nyberg (-)
Madam Speaker! I want to be clear that I naturally do not demand that the government should rule over how courts rule in individual cases. That is very important. But the independence of the courts does not exempt the legislator from responsibility. That criminal law is clear and provides legal certainty is a very important starting point. It is not enough to merely state that legal practice needs to be improved when the government's own agency, Brå, points out that the law is difficult to apply and leads to legal certainty problems. Criminal law must be as clear and predictable as possible when people are expected to follow it.
It cannot be a task solely for the courts to create, through future court cases, the clarity that is lacking today. Today, there are people who risk being wrongly convicted to long prison sentences because of this legislation.
Again: It is not about backing away from the principle of voluntariness. It is about where the limit for criminal liability lies. For negligent rape, ordinary negligence is not enough. The law requires gross negligence. But when is an action not punishable, and when is a person so grossly negligent regarding another's voluntariness that it becomes a case of negligent rape? It must be possible to clearly explain which concrete circumstances mean that just that limit has been crossed.
The Minister for Justice says that he is following the developments, but following the developments is not the same as stating when the government is ready to act. Therefore, I want to ask again: Where is the limit for the Minister for Justice? What concrete circumstances would cause the government to move from following the legal developments to actually taking concrete measures?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Overall, there should be a fairly good basis for considering what further measures should be taken. Then I note nevertheless that Brå also requests more guiding decisions. Just when it comes to application issues, the usual way, if I may put it that way, is for the courts to clarify and resolve the legislation and, through guiding decisions, create clarity regarding several of the questions that Katja Nyberg raises.
I have, as I have said, not only noted Brå's previous views but also personally requested and ordered this underlying material from Brå. As I have also said, it confirms as a whole that the consent legislation works well, but it also points out legal certainty problems with, among other things, the crime of negligence.
I say as I said earlier: I think we are starting to collect evidence that nevertheless makes it justified to look at this in a more systematic way, but I have no information today on when it should happen or in what format.
Katja Nyberg (-)
Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by speaking about why I raised the interpellation. We must be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. Sweden must have a strong sexual offense legislation that protects people's sexual integrity and gives crime victims the opportunity for redress, but we must also have a criminal law that is clear, predictable, and legally secure. One is not in opposition to the other. On the contrary, both are necessary for confidence in the justice system.
When Brå, on the government's assignment, reviews a penal provision and points out that it is difficult to apply and causes legal certainty problems, I believe that the legislator has a responsibility to take that conclusion most seriously.
I therefore welcome that the Minister for Justice does not close the door to the fact that the questions may need further clarification. I would have, however, wished that he opened it a bit more than that. Legal certainty is not an obstacle to strong legislation on sexual offenses. Legal certainty is a prerequisite for the legislation to maintain its legitimacy and people's trust over time.
My hope, finally, after this debate is that the government will not content itself with merely following the developments but will act based on the problem that Brå has already identified.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Katja Nyberg for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!
I believe we are quite in agreement on the points. It is very important to have strong legislation on sexual offenses in Sweden. The fact that we base our legislation on consent is a great strength. The materials we have received from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council also confirm that it works very well in all essential respects.
It is also quite true that there is no contradiction between the effectiveness of such legislation on the one hand and the rule of law on the other. Without the rule of law, even the effectiveness over time will be undermined, in addition to the consequences it can have for individuals who may happen to become subjects of an insecure legal process.
I think it is good that the questions are raised, and I am open to further clarifying the questions in an appropriate manner, in an appropriate context and at an appropriate time. Exactly how and when it should happen, we will have to return to.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.