[ad_1]
Criticisms have been hardened against the Swedish legal system. It is said to benefit criminals who can benefit from the rules of procedure. Now the government is opening up for change this fall.
– I think most people agree that it is necessary to modernize the regulations, says Interior Minister Mikael Damberg (S) to TT. Stock Photography.
Today, a court can only rule on what arises during the trial. The rule is called the immediacy principle and has recently come under fire. Among other things, so that offenders can adapt their testimonies to the evidence they may receive before the hearing.
– We experience that it is increasingly common for suspects, especially in gang contexts, to wait until they have seen the entire investigation before giving their explanation, says Paulina Brandberg, prosecutor for the national unit against international and organized crime.
This means that suspects are not at risk of being disproved when new evidence is presented, and even if the story may seem unlikely, it often leads to an acquittal, according to Brandberg.
If, instead, it is possible to use early interrogations with suspects at the beginning of the investigation in court, as in Denmark, it will be easier to rule out an ex post construction in court that suits the evidence in the case.
– Then it is easier to break a false story, says Paulina Brandberg.
Now the government is open to changes. An interim report filed as early as 2017 proposed greater opportunities to use documented interrogations as evidence in court. The report, which is part of a broader investigation into procedural law and major criminal cases, has been the subject of consultation and could soon be the basis for a government proposal.
– I do not want to set an exact date, but now we have received comments and we are preparing it in the Government Offices. I think there are strong reasons to modernize the regulation and, from my point of view, I don’t see any point in waiting. But it is complicated and there are different points of view, says Interior Minister Mikael Damberg.
The research notes, among other things, that courts rarely use police questioning in their assessment. This leads to long periods of solitary confinement, because you don’t want to risk suspects talking to each other before trial.
– It does not benefit anyone and it is not legally safe, says Mikael Damberg.
However, it is important that the interrogations that will be used as evidence in court are carried out with great legal certainty, emphasizes Damberg.
– It must be surrounded by proposals that strengthen the participation of all parties in the process, so that it is legally safe.
When it comes to legal certainty, Damberg is supported by Dennis Martinsson, Senior Lecturer in Law at Stockholm University.
– If you make sure that the questioning is conducted in the presence of a lawyer, a judge and a prosecutor, and that it is recorded with sound and images, you are probably fine (using early questioning as evidence in court), says Martinsson.
In addition to the increased chances of a person being convicted, prosecutor Paulina Brandberg also sees that videotaped first interrogations can provide more accurate testimony, which can be beneficial to both the prosecutor and the defense.
– The closer you are to the event, the closer the truth gets to the story, she says.
He also argues that a change in this basic legal principle is not as dramatic as it may seem, and points out that there is already a clear exception.
– Children are not called to trial, but their questioning is recorded in advance. I have not experienced anyone expressing that this is a problem of legal certainty.
The principle of immediacy
The principle of immediacy is a basic principle of procedural law, which means that the court can only consider such material presented during the main hearing when deciding a case.
It also means that the court must base its evaluation on its own observations of what was presented at the hearing and not on the record of the record.
Source: Nationalencyklopedin
