Response to interpellation 2025/26:590 on prescription periods
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns prescription periods and the victim's perspective. M believes that more crimes should be cleared up and that the victim's perspective should have a greater impact on legislation 1. M argues that it is unreasonable for victims to be disadvantaged by delays and is prepared to look more closely at pausing the prescription period during an active preliminary investigation 2 3. M believes that victims should be treated as in a well-functioning constitutional state where the state's missteps must not have consequences for legal certainty 3, and that the victim's position should be strengthened for a practical and effective fair trial 4. SD believes that victims should never lose the opportunity for legal review due to long processing times 5 6. SD advocates that the prescription period should be able to be paused during an active preliminary investigation against an identified suspect 5 6 and argues that it is unreasonable for crimes to be prescribed while the state is investigating them 5 6. SD believes that the work that the government, together with SD, has achieved during the last four years is of great importance for people's safety and everyday lives 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)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Angelica Lundberg, for the opportunity to speak about these important issues today!
The questions concern how I assess that the current prescription rules affect the possibility of prosecuting crimes where the investigation times are long, and whether I intend to take any measures based on my assessment.
Angelica Lundberg has further asked me whether I and the government have analyzed to what extent crimes are prescribed during an ongoing investigation and whether I intend to take any measures to ensure that crime victims do not lose out on legal review as a result of long processing and investigation times.
I want to begin by emphasizing that it is of the utmost importance for the government that more crimes are solved and lead to prosecution. It is part of our major overhaul of crime policy. It is, not least, about a fundamental shift in perspective from the perpetrator to the crime victim and society's need for protection against crime.
To fully achieve such a shift, it is of course of decisive importance that crimes are not prescribed too early. The prescription rules have therefore been modernized recently. The interpellor himself also raised this. The regulation has been adapted to the forensic and technical developments which involve new possibilities to solve older crimes compared to previously. These rules reflect the government's stricter view on serious crime and mean that the crime victim perspective gains greater impact in this legislation. The new rules entered into force as recently as April 1 last year.
The new legislation also enables prosecution of crimes with long investigation times, among other things by ensuring that all crimes with life imprisonment in the sentencing scale shall not be prescribed, that the prescription period for serious crimes has been extended, and that the prescription period for aggravated violation of peace and honor-based oppression is counted from the day the victim turns or would have turned 18 years old. Thus, more crimes are captured than before.
An area where there may be reason to have special rules for prescription is crimes committed against children. Children are particularly worthy of protection, and it can take a long time into adulthood before the person who was subjected to a crime is able, dares, or gets the opportunity to process the events and wants to report them. The prescription period for the most serious sexual crimes against children has already been abolished, but the less serious sexual crimes can still be prescribed. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna have agreed that we shall review this.
In the same way, the government closely monitors how the processing times for preliminary investigations develop. I can state that the average throughput time from the moment a report reaches the prosecutor for investigation until a decision is made has decreased over the last two years, according to the Prosecution Authority's annual report for last year.
At the same time, we are, of course, working in other ways to ensure crime victims' opportunities for restitution. I want to mention that a special investigator was tasked on April 1 of this year to review the regulatory framework for the distribution of evidence and propose changes that lead to improved opportunities for distribution. This investigation shall, among other things, examine what measures can be taken to counteract crimes being prescribed due to a lack of distribution of evidence.
It is ultimately a matter of ensuring a regulatory framework that can contribute to increased confidence in the justice system, better opportunities for redress for crime victims and strengthened protection for individuals. This assignment shall be reported by December next year at the latest.
We have also appointed an inquiry that has been tasked with reviewing the criminal process, with a particular focus on the procedural consequences of the completed and ongoing reforms in the criminal law area. The purpose of this is to arrive at an even more modern and purposeful regulatory framework that meets the interest of an efficient prosecution of crimes while maintaining legal certainty. This assignment is to be reported in July next year.
In addition to this, I would like to highlight the Government Bill from the Council on Legislation, which the government decided on on June 11 this year and which is titled Strengthened rights for the complainant and a more purposeful control over the state's expenditures for legal counsel. It is perhaps a somewhat complicated title. In it, proposals are included, among others, that aim to strengthen the victim's position in the legal process. The proposals mean, among other things, that there shall be strengthened opportunities to obtain a complainant's counsel for those who have been subjected to crimes in various respects.
With all this said, we of course follow the legal developments closely and do not rule out at all that we will need to further highlight these issues in the future in order to strengthen the position of crime victims. I note once again what we have agreed upon between our parties regarding statutes of limitations, namely that there is more to be done, not least in relation to sexual offenses and children.
I look forward to continuing this work in the event that the voters give us renewed confidence to govern the country also after the election on September 13.
Angelica Lundberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I share the view that the reforms, commissioned inquiries, and assignments that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has carried out during this parliamentary term are important for strengthening the position of crime victims. However, I believe we should go even further.
We know that police and prosecutors work under very heavy pressure. Serious violent crimes and detained cases must be prioritized; it is both natural and necessary. It is of course pleasing to hear that investigation times are now decreasing and improving. At the same time, however, there are crimes that often affect women, for example, unlawful threats, defamation, harassment, and crimes against private residence. These are crimes where the investigations sometimes become unreasonably long. At the same time, these crimes have the shortest prescription periods.
The question is what happens when a crime is not in time to be prosecuted because the justice system has not managed to investigate it before the prescription period expires. If the possibility of prosecution disappears because time has passed, the consequence is that the crime victim loses the opportunity for redress. This is not a reasonable order, and it risks affecting the confidence in the justice system.
Let me take an example that is not particularly unusual. A woman finally leaves a violent relationship, but the violence does not stop. Her ex sends threatening messages, shows up at her residence, contacts her employer, cuts the tires on her car, spreads offensive information about her and defames her in front of her colleagues and relatives. She reports it to the police every time.
Finally, the police see that these are not individual incidents that have arisen out of a vacuum; they are part of a pattern. Then a preliminary investigation can be initiated, and then everything happens very systematically. Phones must be secured, messages must be reviewed, witnesses must be heard, and digital evidence must be collected. Interrogations must be transcribed and the prosecutor must be informed.
At the same time, detained cases roll in, serious violent crimes must be investigated, holiday periods arrive, staffing is low and time passes. Before the prosecutor has time to bring a charge, one or more of the crimes are prescribed. The fact that the aggregate offense of gross violation of a woman's freedom and unlawful harassment and so on has longer prescription periods does not actually matter because the individual acts can still be prescribed.
Why should the woman who has done everything right – who has reported, participated in the investigation and submitted evidence – lose the opportunity for judicial review because the investigation did not finish in time? We must ensure that crime victims do not lose the right to redress due to circumstances they cannot influence themselves.
Mr. Speaker! Prescription obviously fulfills important legal certainty functions. I am not advocating that old deeds should suddenly be able to be taken up and prosecuted after a very long time, but I mean that we need to do something about today's system. Should the prescription clock actually continue to tick while the state investigates the crime?
I therefore want to ask the Minister for Justice whether the Minister is prepared to review the possibility of pausing the statute of limitations when an active investigation against an identified suspect is ongoing.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Angelica Lundberg, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!
I do not have a really concrete answer to the very concrete question, because other interests are also involved there. However, I find it very easy to agree with the general demand for regulations both regarding criminal law and for how investigations and other matters are conducted in practice, so that crime victims are not disadvantaged or affected in an unfair way.
On Thursday, the Riksdag will vote on today's volume discount. An often overlooked aspect of it is that the authorities in practice set aside a crime when it is such that that crime has no effect on the sentence. It is therefore many crime victims who, for that reason, never even have their crimes investigated. It is procedurally correct, but it has quite unreasonable consequences for the individual.
Also when it comes to prescription, I believe we can find these types of bugs in the system. They have the effect that the system, which in and of itself as a whole has good reasons for its existence, has unreasonable consequences from the individual crime victim's point of view. I think it is reasonable and justified that, as Angelica Lundberg now does, at least take violence and abuse against women and also children as examples of cases where this has rather draconian consequences.
Let us therefore simply acknowledge the existence of the problem and the importance of us continuing to work on reforming the criminal justice system so that it even better than today meets the crime victims' very justified expectation and interest of having their crimes investigated and prosecuted.
Angelica Lundberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I naturally share the Minister's view that the measures we have taken are incredibly important. The abolition of volume discounts is just one part of a very large package of various measures in the criminal law area. I also think that Thursday's vote will be an important message to the voters about who actually puts the focus on the crime victim in the foreground.
For those who are subjected to crime, it can be a big step to file a police report. This applies in particular to women who are subjected to crime in close relationships. We know that many crimes are not reported immediately; for those living under threat, control, or violence, it can take months, or sometimes several years, to dare to take the step and contact the police. Often, one may need to leave the relationship before there is enough strength to undergo a legal process.
Once the report has been made, the crime victim has done their part, and it is then the state that takes over the responsibility. Therefore, I mean that crime victims should never have to lose the opportunity for judicial review because the police's or the prosecutor's handling has taken too long.
As the Minister mentions, we already have today special prescription rules for certain crimes against children. It means that we have established that there are certain situations where the circumstances of the victim mean that one must look at how prescription is used. It is not reasonable that the perpetrator benefits from the state failing to investigate the crime in time.
I mean that there are reasons to consider whether the prescription period should be able to be paused when an active preliminary investigation against an identified suspect has been initiated. It should not be the processing time that determines whether a crime is tried in court or not.
In Denmark, there is already an arrangement where prescription can be interrupted when the suspect is informed of the suspicion or when the prosecutor requests that the person be considered a suspect. It may be worth looking into. Germany also has longer minimum prescription periods, which means that a heavily burdened system is given an additional year to investigate crimes.
This is particularly important when it concerns crimes that can be parts of a larger pattern of violence and control in a close relationship. A single unlawful threat or harassment may appear less serious, but together, those types of acts can constitute parts of an escalating spiral of violence. Here, the police also need to become better at seeing the whole picture. Far too many reports are dismissed today because the individual incident is not placed in a larger context.
The Sweden Democrats and the government have taken powerful measures to curb gang crime. Now it is time that we also address the violence that occurs in the home – the place on earth that should be a person's safest. If we are serious about the shift in perspective from perpetrator to crime victim that the minister describes, we must also be prepared to close the gaps that exist. It is not enough for the state to tell a crime victim who has done everything right: Unfortunately, we did not manage to investigate in time.
I therefore want to ask the Minister if we agree that a real shift in perspective in favor of the crime victim also requires that we review the prescription rules which today can mean that a crime is never prosecuted because the state has not managed to investigate it in time.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I am undoubtedly prepared to look at that question. I think that everything that can, so to speak, be blamed on the state when it comes to delays in the system is something we have every reason to examine more closely. It is naturally not reasonable that it should have consequences for individual crime victims, for example, that a crime cannot be subject to judicial review at all. In that work, I would like to see experiences from other countries, and then it must, of course, also fit into our model.
The entire starting point for us is the insight that the victim's redress, of course, is built on a long series of different things, everything from how one is met by the justice system to the fact that, in the end, there is a punishment that reflects the gravity of the crime. In between, there are a lot of procedural questions that, so to speak, are to lead from the good treatment to a consequence or redress in the form of a punishment that, as said, reflects the damage or violation that the individual has been subjected to.
We are now looking at a long series of such criminal procedural issues. We have looked at the prescription issues in particular order, and we have agreed to do so in more areas. I am also very open to looking at additional issues – all with the starting point that crime victims should be treated in such a way as one has the right to expect in a well-functioning constitutional state. The state's missteps, imperfections, or lack of resources must not have unreasonable consequences for the individual and his or her legal certainty.
Angelica Lundberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to devote my final speech to saying thank you.
First and foremost, I would like to thank Gunnar Strömmer, not only for this debate but also for all the work he has done in the civil law area and in the criminal law area during this parliamentary term. What Gunnar Strömmer and the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, have achieved during these four years will have great significance for people's safety and everyday lives. I can only hope that the person who is Minister of Justice after the election this autumn, regardless of who it becomes, chooses to build upon the work that has now been started.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the Speaker's Bureau, and all the employees in the Riksdag's fantastic administration for these eight years. This looks to be my last speech here in the Riksdag's rostrum, and it has been a privilege to have worked at such a well-organized and welcoming workplace for eight years.
I would also like to extend a thank you to all my colleagues in the Riksdag from my own party and other parties. We sometimes think a bit differently, but we share responsibility for Sweden's future. The work performed here can affect people's lives long after a mandate period is over, so use the time well!
I may be leaving the Riksdag, but not my commitment. I look forward to new opportunities to continue working on the social issues I am passionate about. With that, Mr. Speaker, I do not say goodbye but: Until we meet again, hopefully!
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Angelica Lundberg for this exchange and for many other exchanges over the years. They have been pleasant and very rewarding. In several cases, they have also left a concrete mark on the policy that has been conducted during the mandate period, not least when it concerns the issues we are now talking about, that is, the position of crime victims in the process and – even more concretely – the prescription issues.
I must take responsibility for taking this from the exchange and managing this concrete issue in a good way as we look forward. There is no doubt that more must be done and that the position of crime victims in the criminal justice process must be strengthened so that the right to a fair trial does not become a chimera but instead becomes practical, effective, and real for as many crime victims as possible.
Many thanks to the member for today and for all the work she has performed during her years here in the Riksdag!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.