sou · GVB36 · 2008-01-01 00:00:00 — innebörden att målsägandebiträdet alltid ska föra talan om enskilt anspråk om ett sådant anspråk har framställts av målsäganden. Med förslaget blir målsägandebiträdets ansvar för att föra talan om enskilt anspråk på målsägandens vägnar primärt i stället för subsidiärt. I den mån ett målsägandebiträde inte har förordnats kvarstår åklagarens ansvar att föra talan om enskilt anspråk. Åklagaren har också kvar skyldigheten att förbereda skadestånds- talan fram till dess att frågan om förordnade av målsägandebiträde är avgjord. Målsägandebiträdets ersättning (kapitel 11) Gemensamt för de flesta målsägande är att de direkt efter domen behöver ledning för att få ut sitt skadestånd. Därför bör det vara möjligt för målsägandebiträde att bistå målsäganden med de inledande åtgärder som är nödvändiga för att få ut ett av domstolen utdömt skadestånd. Utredningen föreslår en förändring av 3 § lagen om målsägandebiträde Bestämmelsen ska reglera måls- ägandebiträdets uppgift med att bistå målsäganden efter det att dom har meddelats. Den nya bestämmelsen anger att måls- ägandebiträdet i skälig omfattning ska bistå målsäganden med att få ut ett tilldömt skadestånd. Målsägandebiträdets ersättningsanspråk ska bedömas inom ramen för det som brukar benämns avslutande Målsägandebiträdet kan ersättas enligt en särskild brottmålstaxa för målsägandebiträden. Taxebeloppen omfattar enligt 5 § i brottmålstaxan för målsägandebiträden allt arbete i målet. Någon särskild ersättning för kontakter med målsäganden eller förberedande av målet utgår således inte. Det arbete som utförs före huvudförhandlingen är ofta en betydande del av målsägandebiträdets uppdrag och i många fall kan den avgörande delen av arbetet ha ägt rum under förundersökningsstadiet. Mot den bakgrunden anser utredningen att taxesystemet inte är förenligt med lagstiftningen om målsägandebiträde och de avsikter som finns med den. Utredningen föreslår därför att regeringen ger i uppdrag att göra en översyn av taxesystemet med utgångspunkt i målsägandens behov av målsägandebiträde och syftet med lagstiftningen om målsägandebiträde. Polisens utbildning (kapitel 12) Utbildning om målsägandebiträde förekommer på polisutbild- ningen i varierande utsträckning Bestämmelserna om information om målsägandebiträde kräver kunskap av polis för att hanteras på ett riktigt sätt. Det har visat sig att information om målsägande- biträde inte lämnas i tillräcklig utsträckning och att målsägande- biträde inte alltid har förordnas vid sexualbrott. Särskilda utbildningsinsatser om målsägandebiträde för poliser som kommer i kontakt med brottsoffer är nödvändiga. Utredningen föreslår därför att ger Polishög- skolan uppdraget att göra en översyn av polisutbildningen med syfte att lagstiftningen om målsägandebiträde integreras i utbildningen på samtliga utbildningsplatser. Särskild företrädare för barn (kapitel 14) I de fall där det finns misstanke om att brott som kan föranleda fängelse har begåtts mot någon som är och en vårdnadshavare kan misstänkas för brottet, eller det kan befaras att en vårdnadshavare på grund av sitt förhållande till den som kan misstänkas inte kan tillvarata barnets rätt skall en särskild företrädare förordnas för barnet. Om dessa förutsättningar gäller och barnet har två vårdnadshavare som inte bor tillsammans ska den andra vårdnadshavaren förordnas att ensam ta till vara barnets rätt under förundersökningen och i efterföljande rättegång. Det som är mest angeläget i de situationer när barn utsätts för brott av närstående är att det ges goda möjligheter att utreda brott och att barnet får en oberoende företrädare som är kompetent att hantera dessa mycket känsliga situationer och att förundersökningsledaren får tillräcklig tid på sig att utföra de nödvändiga inledande åtgärderna. Utredningen föreslår att möjligheten att förordna en särlevande vårdnadshavare som företrädare för barnet tas bort. Den som företräder barnet när det finns två vårdnadshavare som inte bor tillsammans ska alltid vara en utomstående person som är jurist om förutsättningarna i 1 § av lagen om särskild företrädare för barn är uppfyllda, d v s att en vårdnadshavare kan misstänkas för brottet, eller det kan befaras att en vårdnadshavare på grund av sitt förhållande till den som kan misstänkas för brottet inte kommer att ta till vara barnets rätt och detta gäller endast i fråga om en av vårdnadshavarna. Den särskilde företrädarens behörighet Utredningen föreslår också en ändring i behörighetskriteriet för dem som tar uppdrag som särskild företrädare för barn. I första hand ska advokater utses som särskilda företrädare för barn. De som förordnas som särskilda företrädare för barn ska genomgå utbildning anpassad för uppdraget. Behörighetskravet för den särskilde företrädaren blir således detsamma som det utredningen föreslår ska gälla för målsägandebiträden. De advokater som önskar ta uppdrag som särskilda företrädare för barn kan anmäla det till åklagarkamrarna på samma sätt som gäller för målsägandebiträden enligt utredningens förslag. De upptas på den förteckning över målsägandebiträden och särskilda företrädare som utredningen föreslagit ska finnas tillgängliga på åklagar- kamrarna. När det finns misstankar om att brott har begåtts mot barn av en närstående behöver förhör och läkarundersökning ofta genomföras omgående. Enligt gällande lagstiftning ska åklagaren hos domstolen ansöka om ett interimistiskt förordnande av en särskild företrädare för att denne ska kunna ta till vara barnets rätt under förundersök- ning. För att förenkla och förkorta beslutsprocessen bör åklagaren istället för domstolen ges rätten att interimistiskt förordna en särskild företrädare för barn. I förordningen om särskild före- trädare för barn föreslår utredningen att tidsfristen för expediering av beslut om interimistiskt förordnande förlängs . Utredningen föreslår att det görs en översyn av ersättningsreglerna som berör de särskilda företrädarna så att dessa ges möjlighet att få ersättning för det arbete som krävs för att ett skadestånd ska kunna utbetalas till barnet efter det att dom i målet meddelats. The Inquirys deliberations and proposals The remit of the inquiry has been to review the scope of the Injured Party Counsel Act and to study how the Act is used in relation to its intentions. One part of the remit has been to clarify the role and tasks of the injured party counsel both in relation to the needs of the injured party and in relation to other actors in the judicial system. The remit has also included a review of the drafting and wording of the legislation. For injured parties who need legal assistance, information and support, it is important that this is provided as soon as possible after the start of a preliminary investigation. It was already concluded ten years ago that the injured party counsel should have a more prominent role in the preliminary investigation. It has now been shown in various contexts that in gross sexual crimes the injured party counsel has not been appointed to the extent envisaged by the legislator or at the time intended. The time when the injured party counsel is appointed affects the standing of the injured party during the legal proceedings and is of great importance for how the injured party experiences the preliminary investigation and the court hearing. In the view of the inquiry, one way of clarifying the remit of the injured party counsel is to appoint the injured party counsel when the need for legal assistance and personal support is greatest. The same applies to the special representative for children. Information (chapter 5) One of the inquirys conclusions is that some of the problems in appointing injured party counsel are explained by how information to injured parties is handled. The deficiencies can consist in information about injured party counsel not being given, in the information provided not being given in the right way or in the information provided not being documented. The provisions on information about injured party counsel are characterised by a certain lack of clarity and actors in the judicial system take the view that injured parties do not always receive the information they must/are intended to have. The inquiry proposes three amendments to Section 13 a of the Preliminary Investigations Ordinance concerning information about injured party counsel. The amendments are intended to clarify and reinforce the provisions concerned. As regards the scope of the information, the inquirys starting point is that injured parties covered by the legislation, i.e. injured parties who are the victims of crimes punishable by imprisonment, must be notified that an injured party counsel can be appointed. It is only in certain exceptional cases, where it is quite clear that an injured party counsel is not needed, that information does not need to be provided. such regulation requires knowledge on the part of the and prosecutor, and the inquiry therefore proposes some training for these groups. The inquiry has found that it is not enough for the injured party to be told that it is possible to have an injured party counsel appointed. The injured party should also be told what conditions apply to the appointment of an injured party counsel. It is also important that the and prosecutor find out about the injured party's needs or wishes concerning injured party counsel. The duty to provide information should therefore include an obligation for the and prosecutor to obtain information about the injured party's attitude to the question of injured party counsel. The present provision on information about injured party counsel does not say exactly when the information about injured party council is to be given. The inquiry takes the view that it is important that the injured party is notified at an early stage about the possibility of being represented by an injured party counsel so that an injured party counsel can be appointed when the preliminary investigation starts or, at any rate, at an early stage of the preliminary investigation. The inquiry therefore proposes more specific wording of Section 13 a of the Preliminary Investigations Ordinance stating that information about injured party counsel shall be given in connection with the report to the , However, there are cases where there is no point in giving information to the victims because they are not capable of absorbing the information. In view of this the inquiry has proposed an exception to the general rule to the effect that information may be given at a later stage if there are special reasons for doing so. One of the causes why information about injured party counsel has been inadequate is that no one in the judicial chain has had the ultimate responsibility for making such information available. The inquiry has therefore proposed an expansion of the provision in Section 13 a to give the prosecutor responsibility for checking that information has been given about injured party counsel. The inquiry also has a couple of other proposals to further improve information about injured party counsel. As there is no written information dealing specifically with legislation on injured party counsel, the inquiry proposes that the Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority be instructed to produce written information material about the rules on injured party counsel in cooperation with the . The inquiry also proposes a review of the computer system for registering reports and handling cases, the , to ensure that injured parties get the information they have to receive under the legislation and that the information is documented to a greater extent that it is today. This review should result in changes to the system so that when a report of a serious crime is registered the report cannot be completed unless information about injured party counsel has been given. The inquiry proposes that and the Office of the Prosecutor-General each be instructed to draft guidelines for information to injured parties that have to include information about injured party counsel. and the Office of the Prosecutor-General must cooperate in work on the guidelines. Finally the inquiry takes the view that the question of how information is given about injured party counsel should form part of work by the and prosecutors to assure the quality of support for victims and that the injured party counsel should be made visible in the work being done to achieve efficient management of preliminary investigations. The injured party counsel at examinations during the preliminary investigation (chapter 5) Under the Code of Judicial Procedure the injured party counsel is entitled to take part in interviews with the injured party and, in certain circumstances, also with other people. The provisions on the participation of the injured party counsel in interviews should be clarified through a new provision stating that the injured party counsel shall be notified when interviews are to be held with the injured party during the preliminary investigation. The inquiry also proposes that in order to have access to their own legal proceedings the injured party and the injured party counsel shall be entitled to continuous information about what has emerged in the investigation to the extent that this can be done without harming the criminal investigation. The inquiry proposes that the new provisions be placed in a special section of the Code of Judicial Procedure regulating the rights of the injured party counsel at examinations. The obligations of the prosecutor in relation to the injured party (chapter 6) No matter whether or not an injured party counsel has been appointed, the prosecutor is an important person for the injured party. But the injured party is also important for the prosecutor during the work of the investigation and as a provider of evidence. For many people, going through legal proceedings is an important event and being examined in court can be experienced as frightening. The way in which the judicial system handles the treatment of injured parties and witnesses is of great importance for public confidence in the judicial system. The inquiry therefore proposes that a new provision be added to the Preliminary Investigations Ordinance to the effect that, in the case of a serious crime, a prosecutor is obliged to offer a meeting to an injured party who is to be examined in court. Appointment of injured party counsels (chapter 7) In the surveys it has conducted the inquiry has found that in many cases injured party counsel are appointed at a late stage of legal proceedings. It has also emerged that prosecutors often examine the injured partys need for injured party counsel and that prosecutors not infrequently wait to file a request for an injured party counsel. Prosecutors and bar association members do not feel that the system for appointing injured party counsel functions fully satisfactorily. The view of the inquiry is that it is important for the sake of the injured party to shorten the present decision process for appointing injured party counsel. The body that has the best knowledge of the needs of the injured party is also best placed to take decisions on the appointment of injured party counsel. The inquiry therefore proposes that the prosecutor appoint an injured party counsel during the preliminary investigation. The prosecutors decision to reject a request for an injured party counsel or to appoint some person other than the person proposed by the injured party for such a task can be appealed by the injured party to the district court. To further improve the system the inquiry proposes a provision that decisions in matters concerning the appointment of injured party counsel shall be taken promptly. When a prosecution has been initiated it is the court that appoints the injured party counsel. The qualifications of the injured party counsel The legislation on legal counsel for injured parties should state that assistance is only given by an experienced and qualified lawyer. It is desirable to have equivalent qualification requirements for the injured party counsel and the public defence counsel. In order to raise the quality of the appointment as an injured party counsel we propose that as a general rule members of the be appointed as injured party counsel. The Act should contain a special suitability requirement for injured party counsel. The inquiry therefore considers that a new provision, Section 5 of the Injured Party Counsel Act, should be introduced to regulate the qualifications of the injured party counsel. List of injured party counsel In line with the proposal for a suitability requirement for injured party counsel the inquiry proposes that the bar association members who wish to take appointments as injured party counsel notify their interest to the public prosecution office in the region where they work. A public list of bar association members who are interested in appointments as injured party counsel must be available at authorities and public prosecution offices. To be included in the list the injured party counsel must have completed appropriate training for injured party counsel. The inquiry has proposed that the public prosecution offices should be responsible for drawing up the list. Duty system for injured party counsel To enable the injured party counsel to take part in interviews during the preliminary investigation the inquiry proposes that a special duty system be set up for the bar association members who are interested in taking appointments as injured party counsel and who have notified their interest in being included in the list of injured party counsel that the inquiry proposes be drawn up. The view of the inquiry is that this duty system should be set up and managed by the bar association members themselves. In connection with the proposal presented concerning information and the appointment of injured party counsel the inquiry proposes that joint, central-level further training be held for prosecutors. Such training should deal with the prosecutors new powers in relation to the injured party counsel and fundamental questions in the legislation concerning the injured party and the injured party counsel. It is proposed that from now on questions concerning the injured party counsel should be included in the basic training of prosecutors. Scope of the Act (chapter 8) One intention behind the legislation on injured party counsel was to give the injured parties in greatest need of support a legal counsel in legal proceedings. As regards the scope of the Act the inquiry has identified two groups with a particular need of support and assistance. These are victims of sexual crime and children. In the case of injured parties who have been subjected to sexual violations deficiencies have been found in the application of the legislation, and generally speaking children are a vulnerable group in the judicial system. For these reasons the inquiry proposes two changes to the scope of the Act. The inquiry proposes an amendment to Section 1, point 1 of the Injured Party Counsel Act to the effect that an injured party counsel shall be appointed in cases concerning an offence under Chapter 6 of the Penal Code unless the offence is classified as sexual molestation under Chapter 6, Section 7 of the Penal Code and it is obvious that the injured party does not need an injured party counsel. Injured parties in sexual crimes will have a mandatory right to an injured party counsel for all categories of offences in Chapter 6 of the Penal Code except for sexual molestation. This means that, in the case of sexual crimes, it will not be necessary to assess whether the injured party does not need an injured party counsel. It is only in the case of offences classified as sexual molestation that there is scope for an examination of the injured party's need of an injured party counsel. However, the injured party's own choice is decisive for whether an injured party counsel has to be appointed. The inquiry takes the view that sexual molestation is the only offence in Chapter 6 of the Criminal Code where the violation is not generally as serious as in other offences in Chapter 6. The inquiry therefore also proposes that an injured party counsel always be appointed when a child is subjected to a serious crime. This means that an injured party counsel shall always be appointed for all offences punishable by imprisonment that are directed against persons under 18 years. The tasks of the injured party counsel (chapter 9) The wording of the Act that the injured party counsel shall look after the interests of the injured party in the case and provide support and assistance for the injured party is wide-ranging. The inquiry considers that the tasks of the injured party counsel are bound up with the injured partys needs both in the legal proceedings and outside of them. The main task of the injured party counsel has been described as mitigating stress in connection with the investigation. Many bar association members consider that the main emphasis of their appointment is on preparing the injured party for the main hearing. The inquiry sees the supportive role of the injured party counsel as important for the injured party and for the legal proceedings. There is no conflict between the legal role and the supportive role. The task of conducting the injured partys case and the task of supporting the injured party are linked and therefore they should not be separated. Personal support may be required throughout the legal proceedings and for the injured party it appears to be important to have access to the injured party counsel during both the preliminary investigation and the trial. For this reason the tasks of the injured party counsel cannot be defined so that support is provided either during the preliminary investigation or during the trial, as has been suggested in various contexts. The private claim (chapter 10) Under present law both the prosecutor and the injured party counsel have a duty to assist the injured party with their private claim. The Injured Party Counsel Act states that the injured party counsel shall assist the injured party with their private claim unless this is done by the prosecutor. A comparison of this provision with the provision in the Code of Judicial Procedure on the duty of the prosecutor, on the request of the injured party, to prepare and present the injured partys action for a private claim point to a lack of clarity in the law. Since the wording of the legislation must be clear and unambiguous the inquiry wishes to bring about a clarification concerning the division of responsibility that is applicable between the prosecutor and the injured party counsel concerning the private claim. The inquiry therefore proposes an amendment to the effect that the injured party counsel shall always present an action for a private claim if such a claim has been presented by the injured party. With this proposal the responsibility of the injured party counsel for presenting an action for a private claim on behalf of the injured party will be primary instead of subsidiary. To the extent that an injured party counsel has not been appointed the responsibility of the prosecutor to present an action for a private claim remains in place. The prosecutor will still also have a duty to prepare the claim for damages up until the question of appointing an injured party counsel has been decided. Compensation for the injured party counsel (chapter 11) Since 2002 compensation can be paid to the injured party counsel under a special criminal case scale for injured party counsel. Under section 5 of the criminal case scale for injured party counsel the amounts payable according to the scale cover all work in the case. This means that no separate compensation is paid for contacts with the injured party or preparation of the case.