sou · GWB381 · 2008-10-08 00:00:00 — stort antal myndigheter och andra instanser för att kunna skydda sig mot nya brott och trakasserier. Rädslan för att upptäckas med- för i många fall att brottsoffret tvingas fly från ort till ort. Det finns behov av att skyddet och stödet arrangeras på ett säkert och korrekt sätt redan från början. För att kvaliteten och integriteten ska kunna hållas på den högsta nivån bör kommunerna därför inrätta specialistfunktioner inom detta område. Vi anser därför att det bör finnas utbildade skyddshandläggare tillgängliga i samtliga kommuner. En skyddshandläggare bör vara en länk mellan brottsoffret och kommunala funktioner, myndigheter och ideella organisationer. En särskilt viktig roll har skyddshandläggaren om brottsoffret tvingas att flytta till en annan ort. Om kommunerna inrättar funktioner som skyddshandläggare kommer det att innebära stor kvalitetsförbättring för den som p.g.a. hot, våld eller förföljelse tvingas att fly från sitt hem. bör det dessutom innebära en besparing för kommunerna. Polisens särskilda personsäkerhetsarbete, som formaliserades , omfattar i första hand den som är bevisperson eller anställd i rättsväsendet. Om det finns särskilda skäl får särskilt personsäker- hetsarbete bedrivas även beträffande andra personer. För närva- rande bedömer vi att det saknas förutsättningar att föreslå att vill- koren för vem som kan ingå i det särskilda personsäkerhetsarbetet ska förändras. Vi föreslår dock att regeringen ska ta initiativ till att utvärdera det särskilda personsäkerhetsarbetet. Den utbyggnad av Polisens lokala personsäkerhetsarbete som har påbörjats kommer att möjliggöra för fler brottsoffer att få relevant skydd och annan hjälp. Vi anser dock att en effektiv och likformig utbyggnad av det lokala personsäkerhetsarbetet förut- sätter att tar initiativ till nationella riktlinjer och samordning. Ekonomisk ersättning till personer som utsätts för förföljelse eller allvarlig brottslighet De flesta som utredningen har haft kontakt med som har varit eller är utsatta för förföljelse vittnar om att de inte var förberedda på de kostnader och praktiska problem som skulle följa. Kostnaderna som följer av att en person är utsatt för förföljelse beror naturligt- vis på arten av förföljelsen och hotbilden. Hur den förföljda perso- nen upplever hotet är en annan faktor som påverkar vilka åtgärder som vidtas. Det finns ett antal möjligheter för personer som utsätts för brott att erhålla ekonomisk kompensation och stöd, t.ex. ska- destånd från gärningsmannen, försäkringsersättning, brottsofferer- sättning och kommunalt ekonomiskt bistånd. Den som ingår i Polisens särskilda personsäkerhetsarbete kan i vissa fall få person- säkerhetsersättning. Den som bedöms oförmögen att arbeta eller inte kan få något arbete kan medges sjukersättning eller arbetslös- hetsersättning. Kostnader för den som utsätts för förföljelse eller allvarlig brottslighet kan uppkomma i olika faser. Initiala kostnader kan uppkomma i samband med att hotet först uppträder. Det kan t.ex. avse kostnader för att skydda sig, bl.a. kostnader för larm. Omställ- ningskostnader uppkommer när brottsoffret tvingas flytta. Enligt Brå flyttar ca 15 000 personer från sina hem för att de har utsatts för förföljelse. uppkommer ett behov att försörja sig på den nya orten. Vi bedömer det som särskilt viktigt att tillämpningen av det kommunala ekonomiska biståndet ytterligare förbättras och lik- formas. En viktig del i frågeställningen kring ekonomiskt bistånd är att klarlägga vem som ska betala biståndet. förekommer det oklarheter om hur det ekonomiska ansvaret mellan kommuner ska fördelas om en person av skyddsskäl tvingas flytta från sitt hem till en ny kommun. Frågan om vistelsekommunens ansvar behöver belysas, vilket nu sker genom (S 2008:02) för- sorg. En annan fråga är om gärningsmannens eller samhällets ansvar för de fall då brottsoffret tvingas vidta åtgärder att skydda sig mot ytterligare brott från gärningsmannen ska utsträckas. Vi finner att den frågan ligger utanför denna utrednings uppdrag, men tycker att problematiken möjligen bör utredas. Stalkning från personer intagna för vård eller i anstalt Det förekommer att personer utsätts för förföljelse av någon som är intagen i kriminalvårdsanstalt eller som får psykiatrisk tvångs- vård eller rättspsykiatrisk vård. Det finns ett antal frågetecken kring hur långt anstaltens eller vårdinrättningens ansvar för att för- hindra denna typ av brottslighet sträcker sig. Vi anser att dessa frå- gor bör behandlas inom ramen för regeringens pågående översyn av kriminalvårdslagstiftningen och i den utredning om den psykiat- riska tvångsvården som regeringen har beslutat (Dir. 2008:93). Vårt förslag om elektronisk övervakning av kontaktförbud kom- mer att medföra ökade kostnader motsvarande för Polisen. Dessa ökade kostnader bör kompenseras genom minskade kostnader i övrigt för samhället som ett resultat av minskade utgifter till följd av våld mot kvinnor och annat våld. I övrigt blir de ökade kostnaderna för statliga myndigheter små. Kostnaderna för handläggning av fingerade personuppgifter vid Polisen kan förväntas öka något. Rättsväsendet drabbas av ökade kostnader för offentligt biträde och målsägandebiträde i ärenden om kontaktförbud. Kostnadsökningarna förväntas i viss mån kom- penseras av andra åtgärder som ökar effektiviteten och innebär möjligheter att förbättra arbetsrutiner m.m. De ökade kostnaderna bedöms i varje fall inrymmas inom ramen för befintliga anslag. Förslagen förväntas få brottsförebyggande effekter och öka jämställdheten mellan kvinnor och män. Som ett resultat av försla- gen ökar förutsättningarna att förebygga brott, utreda brott och lagföra gärningsmän. Det bör få till konsekvens att våldsbrottslig- heten, t.ex. mäns våld mot kvinnor, minskar. Förslagen kan även förväntas innebära positiva konsekvenser ur ett barnperspektiv. Framför allt gäller det om bestämmelserna om kontaktförbud och kommunala skyddshandläggare genomförs. Elektronisk övervakning av kontaktförbud innebär konsekven- ser för den personliga integriteten. I de aktuella fallen bedömer vi att det brottsförebyggande syftet har företräde. De nya bestämmelserna föreslås träda i kraft . Särskilda övergångsbestämmelser krävs i lagen om kontaktförbud och lagen om belastningsregister för de besöksförbud som redan har beslutats och gäller vid tiden då de nya bestämmelserna träder i kraft. Each year in a large number of people are subjected to threats and harassment. According to , more than 600 000 people between the ages of 18 and 79 have at some point been the victim of a stalker. For 105 000–165 000 people, this has happened in the past year. Two thirds of victims were, in some way or another, acquainted with their stalker. Of these two thirds, approximately a quarter had – at the time or previously – been the stalkers partner, and approximately one quarter were or had previously been in some other kind of personal relationship with the stalker. In other cases the stalker was, for example, a work colleague or someone with whom the victim had come into contact through their professional activities. One third of the victims stated that they were not acquainted with their stalker. noted that the closer the relationship between victim and stalker, the more serious the harassment and the greater the risk of violence. Twenty-five per cent of all those who had been the victim of a stalker had also been subjected to violence. also noted that every year in approximately 15 000 people are forced to move after having been subjected to harassment. Almost a third of victims had reported the harassment to the . One fifth of all reported cases led to some kind of penalty for the stalker. The most common charges filed were unlawful threats and assault. There is currently no general legal provision that criminalises systematic harassment. However, individual acts can constitute crimes. It is also possible to impose a restraining order if there is a risk of one individual subjecting another individual to crime or har- assment. It is a criminal offence to violate a restraining order. The Stalking Inquiry was instructed to examine which protective measures are best suited to improving protection for people who are subjected to threats or harassment. The Inquiry was also given the task of considering whether there is a need for complementary financial support in certain cases where people are subjected to repeated, serious threats or other kinds of serious crime to such an extent that the way they live their lives is clearly affected. The remit included analysing how the Restraining Orders Act is applied, proposing amendments that could result in the better and more appropriate use of restraining orders, and submitting propos- als for a legal solution that allows restraining orders to be moni- tored electronically. The Stalking Inquiry was also instructed to review the provisions on the confidentiality of addresses etc. and protected personal data. In addition, the Stalking Inquiry was given the task of analysing the application of penalty provisions in cases of repeated harass- ment and stalking, and to consider whether there needs to be greater protection in such situations. There is currently extensive work under way in connected to the issues that the Inquiry has dealt with. A number of the ini- tiatives are described in the Governments Action Plan to combat mens violence against women, violence and oppression in the name of honour and violence in same-sex relations (Govt. Com- munication 2007/08:39). Several government agencies have imple- mented their own initiatives, for example on issues relating to protected personal data and the treatment of perpetrators. By , eight countries in Union had adopted specific stalking prohibitions in their legislation. Although the rest of the EU countries lack special provisions on stalking, the act of stalking can still constitute a punishable crime under other rules – such as those governing unlawful threats, harassment or assault – as is the case in today. Of the 27 countries in Union, 26 have regulations on restraining orders. It is our view that current efforts in are still not suffi- cient for overcoming the problem of stalking. Therefore, we are submitting proposals on how work to combat systematic harass- ment could be made more effective. We consider there to be three key areas that should be dealt with if the problems concerning stalking are to be tackled in an effective . Firstly: efforts must be made to eliminate the threat of stalking – in other words, efforts directed specifically against the stalker. Secondly: in some cases, however, it can be impossible to deal with the actual act of harassment. Some stalkers can be regarded as so persistent that not even long custodial sentences are enough to solve the problem. In these cases, the victims will need protection. Thirdly: in many cases it is necessary to offer the vic- tims support measures other than protection. There is currently no special legal provision on penalties for sys- tematic harassment. The stalker can be sentenced for each act that constitutes a crime, but there is no basis for addressing his or her actions as a whole. Therefore, there is no basis for taking account of the fact that the act of systematically harassing another individ- ual is a cause of great mental distress for the victim. We consider that there are strong arguments for treating acts that are already criminal from a different perspective if they are committed within a pattern of systematic harassment. We therefore propose the intro- duction of a new crime – unlawful harassment. The various undesired actions that systematic harassment can cover are spread across a very wide spectrum. The new provision should, therefore, cover all punishable activities within the area it is intended to protect. However, we do not consider that the crimi- nalised area as such should be extended. Harassment that is not considered to have reached the level of a crime should, instead, lead to a restraining order. Under the new provision, those who commit criminal offences within the meaning of Chapter 3, Section 5; Chapter 4, Sections 4– 7; Chapter 5, Sections 1 and 3; Chapter 6, Section 10; Chapter 12, Section 1; Chapter 17, Sections 1–2 and 10 of the Swedish Penal Code, or within the meaning of Section 35, first paragraph of the Non-contact Orders Act (200x:xx) are to be convicted of unlawful harassment if any of these acts has been part of a repeated violation of the victims integrity. It is proposed that the penalty in normal cases be a prison sen- tence of at most two years. For gross cases the penalty should be imprisonment for at least six months and at most four years. When assessing whether an act is to be considered gross, special attention should be given to whether violence or threats of serious violence have occurred, whether the harassment has been going on for a long time, or whether the acts can be considered particularly seri- ous for any other reason. New Non-contact Orders Act In 2007 the number of applications for restraining orders amounted to 10 400. This means that the number of applications for restraining orders had almost doubled from 2000, when 5 700 applications were received. In 2007 approximately 42 per cent of restraining order applications were approved. The follow-up assessments of the Restraining Orders Act (1988:688) carried out by tion suggest that there are major problems with restraining orders. It emerges from the follow-up assessments that the person the restraining order is intended to protect feels safer with the restraining order in place. In many cases, however, the fear of being subjected to crime remains. According to available statistics, one third of restraining orders are breached. has criti- cised the and prosecutors for their handling of restraining orders. There is a lack of adequate information for the person who is to be protected, risk assessments rarely appear to have been based on a balanced overall assessment, and restraining orders are seldom used to prevent new crimes. In order to deal with these problems, I propose that the Restraining Orders Act be replaced by a new Non-contact Orders The new Act has a different structure from the current Act and is clearer with regard to the terms for issuing a non-contact order. A decision to impose a non-contact order must always be preceded by a proportionality assessment. The proportionality assessment should take into account the opposing interests that exist – in particular the protection and integrity aspects. Particular consideration should be given to the danger of violence or threats being used against the protected person. It should be made easier to impose a non-contact order without the protected person having already been subjected to a crime, so that the non-contact order is better able to complement the pro- posal for a new penal provision for unlawful harassment. We are of the opinion that if clear requirements for proportionality are set out, the legal rights of individuals can be upheld even without a crime having been committed, which is what is required in practice today. It is now possible for adequate assessments to be made thanks to the structured threat and risk assessments that the Swedish Force has introduced. Just as is the case under the Restraining Orders Act, it should be possible to combine a non-contact order with a prohibit- ing the presence of an individual in a specifically designated area. However, it should be possible for the forbidden area to be larger than is currently the case, and the is to be termed access ban. The scope of the access ban should be determined in accordance with the general proportionality assessment. Similarly, it should be possible – as is currently the case – for a non-contact order to be combined with a prohibiting an individual from residing in a dwelling that is used jointly with the protected person. The conditions for issuing a concerning a joint dwelling should, however, be simplified. As is the case today the prosecutor should, as a rule, decide whether a non-contact order is to be imposed. Under the current provision, a decision to impose a restraining order is open to examination by the district court, which must comprise one judge and three lay assessors. We consider that the district court should be able to make decisions concerning non-contact orders without a board of lay assessors, as this would both eliminate certain practical problems and speed up the judicial procedure. It should also be possible for the prosecutor, the injured party or the court itself to raise the issue of a non-contact order during the hearing of a crimi- nal case. We propose that the scale of penalties for breach of a non-con- tact order be raised and for the maximum penalty to be two years imprisonment. breaches should also be made punishable offences. We propose that the responsibility of the for matters concerning non-contact orders be clarified in the new Non-contact Orders Act – e.g. with regard to the monitoring of orders imposed. The Injured Party Counsel Act (1988:609) should be made clearer by a provision stipulating that if an injured party counsel has been appointed for the protected person, it is this counsels task to appear for their client at court hearings concerning a non- contact order. Details of non-contact orders should be removed from criminal records no later than five years following the decision, and not ten years as is currently the case. Non-contact orders with electronic monitoring has been instructed by the Government to carry out experiments with technical equipment in order to link up non-contact orders to a system of electronic monitoring. The purpose of this task was to determine which technical possibilities and limitations exist with regard to the monitoring of non-contact orders. It has previously been found that technological developments were not so far advanced as to enable the electronic monitoring of an individual who has been given a non-contact order whilst upholding that individuals legal rights. We consider that this is now possible, and that it is highly likely that the chances of intro- ducing such a system will be even greater by the time provisions on this are able to enter into force. Therefore, we propose the possibility of attaching electronic monitoring to a non-contact order with an access ban. We propose that it should be possible to electronically monitor the individual who has been issued a non-contact order and to pin- point his or her location so as to determine whether he or she enters the area covered by the non-contact order. This monitoring should be carried out by the , which can then warn the protected person if the order has been breached, take action against the individual under the order and secure evidence that a breach has occurred. The protected person should be offered their own equipment to give an alarm if the individual under the order breaches the non- contact order and is approaching. A decision on a attaching electronic monitoring to non- contact orders should be made by a court of law. However, we propose that the prosecutor be given the power to make an interim decision on electronic monitoring pending review by the court. If an individual under a non-contact order intentionally, or through grave carelessness, prevents the electronic monitoring, he or she should be fined or sentenced to at most one years impris- onment. Protection of personal data In today there are currently 11 500 people whose personal data is protected in some form or another. This figure is rising by approximately 6 per cent each year. There are currently four different protection levels. The first is the protection of personal data under the Secrecy Act, e.g. Chapter 7, Section 1a, and Chapter 7, Section 15. Under Chapter 7, Section 1a of the Secrecy Act, a government agency that is aware that a person is being harassed can refuse to release details of where that person lives. Secondly, the can decide to include a security marking in the national population register. Thirdly, the can allow a person to remain registered at their old address when they move. Fourthly, and lastly, a person can be granted fictitious personal data by a court of law. We consider that there are strong arguments, from a victim per- spective, for the legal regulation of these forms of security mark- ing, which are currently not regulated in legislation. This issue should be dealt with further within the framework of the Popula- tion Registration Inquiry (Fi 2007:11). Legal regulation would increase the chances of more consistent assessments in these cases. Legal regulation would also provide an opportunity to appeal deci- sions – both for those who have had their application for security marking rejected and those who have been informed that this pro- tection is to be discontinued. It should also be possible for the parameters for the obligation of agencies to examine cases to be defined by law. We also consider that when a decision is made to supply a per- son with fictitious personal data, it should not only be taken into account whether registration under past data will provide sufficient protection; an assessment should also take into account how long the threat is expected to last and whether there may be any other effects resulting from registration under past data that could cause problems for the individual. It should also be possible to supply a person with fictitious personal data if this appears to be more suit- able than any other measure, in view of that persons needs and personal circumstances in general. Property designations and land leasehold designations are cur- rently exempt from general secrecy protection under Chapter 7, Section 1a of the Secrecy Act. However, we do not consider that this exemption is necessary as anyone with a justified interest in finding out who owns a certain known property has the possibility of accessing this information even without the provision. We therefore consider that this exemption should be removed. Municipal protection officers for victims of crime Municipalities already have a far-reaching obligation to help the victims of crime. Under Chapter 5, Section 11 of the Social Ser- vices Act (2001:453), it is the responsibility of the social welfare committee to ensure that victims of crime and their families receive support and help. There is often a lack of coordination within the municipality and between municipalities and government agencies. Measures are often taken in the absence of a plan and this happens at a time when the victim is at his or her most vulnerable. In addition, the victim often needs to be in touch with a large number of agencies and other bodies so as to protect himself or herself against new crimes and harassment. In their fear of being found, many victims are forced to flee from place to place. There is a need for protection and support to be arranged in a safe and correct from the outset. In order to maintain a high level of quality and integrity, municipalities should establish specialist functions in this area. We therefore consider that there should be trained protection officers available in every A protection officer should be a link between the victim and the municipalitys functions, government agencies and non-governmental organisations. The protection officer has a par- ticularly important role to play if the victim is forced to move to a new location. If municipalities establish functions such as that of protection officer, this will mean a huge improvement in the quality of pro- tection given to individuals forced to flee their homes due to threats, violence or harassment. This should also lead to long-term savings for municipalities.