sou · GWB3106 · 2009-01-01 00:00:00 — Mediegruppen ska bestå av mediedomarna och ska ha i huvudsak samma uppgifter som och bl.a. vara ett organ för fortlöpande erfarenhetsutbyte när det gäller mediekontakter och föra ut ny kunskap till domstolarna. (i förekommande fall ) ska ha det övergripande ansvaret för utbildningen av domare i medie- frågor och tillsammans med mediegruppen utarbeta innehållet i denna utbildning. Verket ska också uppmärksamma talespersonen för Domstolar på frågor som kan föranleda initiativ från talespersonen. En presstjänst hos ska fungera som startpunkt för journalister och andra som har frågor om verksamheten i dom- stolarna, upprätthålla pressjour och vid behov ge enskilda domare råd och stöd inför mediekontakter. En nyhetsredaktion hos ska internt och externt bevaka flödet av information som rör domstolarna. En talesperson för Domstolar ska vara en person som kan företräda domstolarna och informera om domstolsverksamhet i rikstäckande etermedier och genom klargörande insändare och artiklar i rikstäckande tidningar. En av domstolarnas viktigaste uppgifter från förtroendesynpunkt är att säkerställa att den information om domstolarna som når med- borgarna genom medierna är så allsidig och korrekt som möjligt. För att domstolarna ska kunna fullgöra denna uppgift på ett bra sätt krävs enligt vår mening dels att domarkåren har ett betydligt mer aktivt förhållningssätt till medierna än , dels att informa- tionen från domstolarna blir mer lättillgänglig för medierna. Med ett aktivare förhållningssätt menar vi att domare måste vara beredda att t.ex. publicera pressmeddelanden och hålla presskon- ferenser, men också att det måste finnas en beredskap hos domare till egna kontakter med journalister för att bemöta felaktigheter i rapporteringen eller klara ut missförstånd. Domare bör också ställa upp och informera om domstolsverksamhet i samband med olika diskussioner och intervjuer i radio och TV eller genom klargörande insändare och artiklar. Dessutom bör den externa informationen präglas av föregripande och proaktivitet. Att informationen från domstolarna till medierna ska vara lättillgänglig innebär bl.a. att domare någorlunda enkelt och kort- fattat måste kunna förklara även komplicerade juridiska resonemang för journalister och tillhandahålla informationen i ett format och på tider som i någon utsträckning tar hänsyn till de villkor som medierna arbetar under. Det handlar här bl.a. om att skapa en organisation för mediekontakter som innebär att journalisterna normalt kan få tag i någon person som kan svara på olika frågor. Andra åtgärder för att stärka förtroendet för domstolarna – bättre webbplatser och ökad öppenhet Vi har valt att behandla några ytterligare åtgärder för kommunikation än de som berörts i det föregående som kan ha stor betydelse för förtroendet för domstolarna. Åtgärderna tar på lite olika sätt sikte på att öka domstolarnas tillgänglighet och öppenhet och att öka med- borgarnas kunskap om domstolarna. I första hand menar vi att webben bör kunna användas på ett bättre sätt än för att göra domstolarna mer tillgängliga för parter och för att sprida information till allmänheten om domstolarnas verksamhet. Att utnyttja webbtekniken för att förbättra tillgänglig- heten för parter är särskilt angeläget mot bakgrund av den pågående utvecklingen mot allt färre domstolar i landet. Enligt regeringens handlingsplan för eFörvaltning är målsättningen att det ska vara så enkelt som möjligt för så många som möjligt att utöva sina rättigheter och fullgöra sina skyldigheter samt ta del av förvalt- ningens service. Om domstolarna halkar efter andra myndigheter i denna process, kan det uppstå ett glapp i bemötandekulturen som inte utfaller till domstolarnas fördel. Vi föreslår därför att regeringen ska ge i uppdrag att utarbeta en plan för hur och när det i Domstolar kan införas system med elektronisk akthantering som gör det möjligt för parter att följa sina mål och ärenden och för både parter och domstolar att skicka handlingar elektroniskt via domstolarnas webb- platser. Som ett allra första steg, innan ordningen med elektronisk akthantering blir verklighet, föreslår vi att regeringen ska ge Dom- stolsverket i uppdrag att utreda möjligheterna för parter att via webbplatserna dels få tillgång till samma information om just sina egna mål och ärenden som finns tillgänglig i domstolarnas presentationsterminaler, dels betala ansökningsavgifter och liknande via webben. Vi föreslår vidare att ska introducera funktioner på verkets webbplats som gör det möjligt för allmänheten att både komma åt information om kommande förhandlingar i samtliga dom- stolar och ställa och få svar på domstolsrelaterade frågor. Vi föreslår också att verket ska introducera nya ljud- och bildpresentationer på sin webbplats med möjlighet för besökaren att aktivt påverka presen- tationens upplägg. Vi menar dessutom att verket måste låta översätta den viktigaste informationen till fler språk samt se till att utveckla presentations- terminalerna i domstolarnas väntrum så att det blir möjligt för all- mänheten att komma åt även den webbaserade informationen om domstolarna genom dessa. Verket bör slutligen skapa rutiner för att följa informationen om domstolarna på olika bloggar, mötesplatser och informationssidor på Internet och när det behövs – ofta kanske genom någon mediedomare – påpeka eller rätta felaktigheter i egna kommentarer. Med visst bistånd av bör domstolarna även på andra sätt än som vi föreslagit ovan kunna vidta åtgärder för att öka öppenheten och tillgängligheten för medborgarna och förbättra deras kunskap om domstolarna. Det handlar t.ex. om att bättre ta vara på de möjligheter som besök av skolklasser i domstolarna erbjuder att informera om domstolsverksamhet och att bjuda in allmänheten till s.k. Öppet hus i domstolarna. Det handlar också om att från dom- stolarnas sida erbjuda sig att komma och berätta om domstolsverk- samhet i olika sammanhang. Domstolarna bör dessutom oftare än försöka avkunna dom, särskilt i sådana fall när rättegången följts av t.ex. en skolklass eller målet rönt stor uppmärksamhet och av det skälet haft många åhörare. Däremot tror vi inte att TV-sända rättegångar i nämnvärd ut- sträckning kan bidra till att stärka medborgarnas förtroende för dom- stolarna. Om TV-sända rättegångar skulle tillåtas, kan man nämligen förutsätta att dessa måste omgärdas av en mängd restriktioner som på olika sätt begränsar insynen i rättegången. De kommer därför normalt inte att kunna förmedla en heltäckande och saklig bild av en rättegång. Mycket talar dessutom för att etermedieföretagen i samband med rättegångsproduktioner kommer att använda sedvanliga bearbetningstekniker för att fånga sin publik. En begränsad insyn, eventuellt i förening med en långt driven dramaturgi, ger knappast medborgarna någon möjlighet att själva bilda sig en korrekt upp- fattning om verksamheten i domstolarna. Dessutom finns det en risk för att parter och bevispersoner på olika sätt kan komma att an- passa sig till det förhållande att TV-mediet är närvarande i rätts- salen, till ytterligare men för medborgarnas – och även domstolens – möjlighet att bilda sig en korrekt uppfattning om vad förhörsper- sonen ska höras om. Vi menar att insyn i domstolarnas verksamhet och kunskap om den kan förmedlas på ett bättre sätt än genom TV-sända rättegångar. Our remit has been to undertake a review of how communication between courts of law and citizensTPF1FPT works, particularly with regard to the reception of parties and people giving evidence, the formu- lation of judgements and decisions and courts contacts with the media. Our remit has also included taking account of the quality- enhancement efforts underway in the Swedish courts, in other Nordic countries and in the non-Nordic countries that we considered were of interest. Based on this review, our task has been to consider how communication between the courts and citizens can be further developed. Under the terms of reference of the Inquiry, our pro- posals are to be designed so that they can provide a basis for con- tinued work in the courts on issues concerning reception, how judge- ments are written and contacts with the media. Public trust and confidence in the courts Our main task has been to propose measures that can be expected to strengthen the trust of citizens in the courts. We have therefore chosen to focus somewhat on the function that trust has in society, and particularly as regards the relation between citizens and the courts. Our survey, together with findings in research related to trust, shows that at present, there are a number of factors that are parti- cularly important for the trust that the general public has for the courts. These can be described simply, briefly and not in their order of importance in the following . 1TP PT In our report, we use the concepts of citizens and the general public synonymously. Accordingly the term citizens also refers to people who are not Swedish citizens but who reside in . The accessibility of the courts and the court staff for parties and people giving evidence The courts reception of parties and people giving evidence Processing times at the courts The transparency of the courts decision-making processes The formulation of judgements and decisions The way in which activities of the courts are portrayed by the media The knowledge of the general public about what goes on in the courts The conduct of judges The trust of citizens in the legal system in general and in the courts in particular is at the heart of a democratic state governed by the rule of law and perhaps the most important reason for people actually complying with judgements and decisions. Compared with trust in other public institutions in , citizens have a great deal of trust in the courts, relatively speaking. In , trust in the legal system as a whole is relatively widespread compared with the majority of other western democracies. According to an opinion poll among the general public that we commissioned Statistics to undertake, six out of ten people in have a high degree or very high degree of trust in the courts. From this poll and another opinion poll of our own that we conducted among lawyers and prosecutors, it appears that citizens, lawyers and prosecutors primarily lack trust in the ability of the courts to adjudicate cases in a reasonable time. There is even less trust in whether what is reported in the media corresponds to what is actually said and done in the courts. Basically, trust-creating efforts in the courts are of course a matter of ensuring that adjudication maintains high, even standards. Apart from professional standards, it is, however, also important to ensure that activities in the courts maintain high standards from the point of view of the citizens coming in contact with them. While pro- fessional standards, somewhat simplified, can be said to depend on the knowledge and skills of members of staff, the way in which the citizens perceive standards is determined by the attitude, values and approach of these staff members. Ensuring that parties and people giving evidence are given a posi- tive reception is of key importance with regard to the way in which citizens perceive standards. This is not just a matter of treating parties and people giving evidence with respect and dignity, but also of the courts and the court staff being accessible, so that those who have questions or opinions are able to get in touch with the courts in a simple . Good reception also includes giving parties and people giving evidence access to easily available information about how the court works and what is expected of them in their roles. With regard to the formulation of judgements and decisions, it is important that court lawyers put themselves in the parties situa- tion and give some thought to the purpose of their texts and how they will be perceived and understood by those concerned. This approach makes it easier for parties and others who are not well- versed in the law to understand the reasoning of the court, and to be convinced by it. The majority of people do not, however, come into contact with the courts. It is therefore also important that the courts inform citizens in other ways about the role and task of the courts in society, why the principles of legal security governing their activities are so important, and how they are expressed in the processing of indi- vidual cases and matters. The opinion poll conducted by Statistics among the general public also shows that the more a citizen knows about what goes on in courts, the more trust he or she has in them. Here, the media have a key role as a communicating link between the courts and citizens. For the media to be able to give an all- round and balanced picture of the courts, decision-making pro- cesses in courts must, as far as possible, be observable, or, in other words, characterised by transparency. judge must also be accessible so as to explain his or her standpoints in individual cases and matters and to stand up in defence of the principles of, among other things, independence, impartiality and equal treat- ment. The conduct of judges is also very important in other ways when it comes to citizens trust in the courts as institutions. If the con- duct of judges is inappropriate or takes place in inappropriate con- texts, there is, in fact, a danger that citizens trust in the courts will decline. To strengthen the ethical awareness of judges, there may be reason, in our opinion, for the judiciary to agree on a common, ethical code of conduct for judges. Should trust in the court system decline, it could result in people having less inclination to voluntarily participate in court proceedings. This would lead to a more ineffective and cumbersome processing of cases and matters, which in turn would result in longer pro- cessing times. Another consequence could be that citizens would increasingly turn to alternative dispute-solution bodies. The ultimate consequence of the onset of a general decline in trust in the legal system is a breakdown in the rule of law. Courts must give priority to work on quality enhancement We consider that the basis of successful efforts to improve communi- cation between the courts and citizens is that the courts themselves continuously work with these issues in the future. In general terms, this work involves ensuring a change in the attitudes of staff in the courts so that they understand the demands on, and expectations of, the activities of the courts by the people coming into contact with them. Experience shows that it is not possible to achieve such change through individual projects or isolated measures alone. We therefore maintain the importance of systematic, quality-enhance- ment work conducted at all courts, and stress the key role of the head of the court in these efforts. We propose that the Government instruct the to draft a modified resource-distribution model, in which account may be taken to the quality-enhancement work conducted by the courts. This would mean a clear expression of will on the part of the Government and its agencies that not only quantity – which is currently the most important criterion for distri- bution of funds among courts – but also quality be counted when funds are distributed. This would also signal a clear link between the funds allocated and quality-enhancement work, which could be a strong incentive for courts to start conducting work on systematic quality-enhancement issues. must also play a considerably more role as a methods and resource support for the courts in their quality-enhancement work than is the case today. Support to quality-enhancement work can also be given from one court to another, for example by forming groups of the judiciary who have experience of systematic quality-enhancement work to regionally support other courts wishing to start similar work. To improve communication between the courts and citizens in the areas that were specifically identified in the terms of reference – the reception of parties and people giving evidence, the formulation of judgements and decisions and contacts between the courts and the media – we see the need for the Swedish courts to draw up con- sistent and long-term strategies. These strategies will make it easier for the courts to follow up the effects of the various measures that are taken to improve services, in the framework of the systematic quality-enhancement work. The content of the strategies should be drawn up by the courts themselves. The National Courts Admini- stration should have an overall role in the strategy work. Accordingly, the Administration should initiate the courts work with the stra- tegies, drive this process forward and keep the work alive. In this connection, one important task for the National Courts Admini- stration, is to, together with the courts, find the way in which the strategies should be approved by the courts. This can, for instance, take place in the framework of larger meetings between judges, or in another connection where many judges and other staff of courts come together. We have thus not seen as our task to try to establish the content of these strategies down to the last detail. To guarantee a wide im- pact in the courts it is, in our opinion, the courts themselves who has to decide how the reception of parties and people giving evi- dence, the formulation of judgements and decisions and contacts between the courts and the media should be manifested more closely. We consider, however, that the strategies should be based on a number of different cornerstones and functions. These are presented in the following, together with what should be the points of departure for the work of producing the strategies in each area. Measures for improving the reception of parties and people giving evidence The strategy that we propose that the Swedish courts draw up con- cerning the reception of parties and people giving evidence should be based on the following cornerstones. There are to be concrete guidelines for what parties and people giving evidence have reason to expect and the demands that can be placed on the staff of courts with regard to the person-to- person reception. All courts should offer the same accessibility with regard to tele- phone and office hours and contacts by email. Information to parties and people giving evidence about what goes on in the court and what is expected of them will be im- proved and more easily available. The reception of people appearing at court is to improve and in the larger courts, there should be special service staff. All the staff at courts are to be trained with regard to reception issues. The views on, and expectations of, parties and people giving evi- dence of their reception at courts are to be examined regularly. There is to be a reception ombudsman. Reception is a concept that can be interpreted in several ways. There is an overall distinction between person-to-person reception and institutional reception. Person-to-person reception is about the way in which staff behave in direct contacts with the people coming into contact with, in this case, the courts, while institutional recep- tion focuses on how the court as such is perceived by the people who visit it or otherwise come into contact with it. Apart from the obvious reason – that everyone who comes into contact with the courts has a justifiable demand to be treated with respect and dignity – it is also important for the courts ability to fulfil their public duties that parties and people giving evidence are treated in a positive way. For people at court hearings to be able to give a free, detailed and also more correct account, they need to feel secure and listened to when they are in the situation of being heard. Providing a good reception for parties and people giving evidence is thus ultimately a question of legal security, which is a matter of en- suring that the court obtains the best possible basis for its judge- ment in cases. This, in turn, requires that parties and people giving evidence are clear about what is going to happen and what is expected of them at the court. Written information coming from the court must be easy to understand and must not be perceived as unpleasant or threatening. It is also important that the sense of exposure that people may experience as parties or people giving evidence is not exacerbated by it being difficult to get in touch with someone at the court who can answer questions. Positive reception in connection with arrival at the court can contribute to a feeling of calm and security. During the hearing, the party and the person giving evi- dence must be able to feel that the members of the court are genuinely listening to, and are attentive, to their need for infor- mation, a break or other support that can be provided so that they are able to submit a detailed account. Measures to improve the formulation of judgements and decisions The purpose of the strategy we are advocating with regard to the formulation of judgements and decisions is primarily to encourage discussion at the courts so as to improve readability and judicial argumentation. This includes achieving rational use of the resources available for writing judgements. The strategy should be based on the following cornerstones. The Swedish courts are to have regulations on the formal and graphic design of judgements and decisions. There are to be recommendations for how judgements and decisions should be formulated with regard to readability and judicial argumentation. All court lawyers are to be trained in issues concerning the for- mulation of judgements and decisions. The quality of judgements and decisions, in terms of readability and judicial argumentation, will be regularly examined. Our studies of judgements and decisions with regard to readability shows that there are quite a number of problems, involving everything from structure and outline to the way in which they are expressed and the vocabulary used. Moreover, judicial argumentation is some- times insufficient. The most important cause of such problems in judgements and decisions is probably that court lawyers seldom have the recipient in mind when they write their texts. This may be assumed to be principally due to the traditions in the way in which court lawyers learn how to formulate judgements and decisions. This means that previous judgements and decisions serve as guides and templates, even with regard to issues to do with linguistic formulation. When judges views on how judgements and decisions should be formulated are determined by what colleagues have developed over the years, it does not come naturally to them to think about how the text will be perceived and understood by individual parties. In our opinion, current ideals about how judgements are written need to be changed so as to improve readability and judicial argu- mentation. In the future, court lawyers must be more aware of plain language efforts when it comes to formulating judgements and decisions. The language policy objective that Public Swedish is to be cultivated, simple and comprehensible also applies to the courts (Govt. 2005/06:2, Report 2005/06:KrU4). We have therefore produced some language reports and other aids that court lawyers could use to check the readability and judicial argumentation of their texts. Vigorous measures to improve the courts contacts with the media The strategy we propose with regard to the courts contacts with the media will entail forceful initiatives targeted at particularly im- portant actors and functions. We refer to the following. Judges are primarily to manage contacts with the media concerning the cases and matters for which they are responsible. Heads of courts are to contribute to creating an atmosphere of openness at courts and a willingness to provide information to the media.