sou · H5B317 · 2017-02-23 00:00:00 — Anyone who is suspected or accused of an offence is guaranteed a number of procedural rights. Essentially, these rights are rarely unique to the Swedish legal system. On the contrary, several of them are regarded as fundamental human rights and are addressed in many of the international conventions and other legal instruments. One right that is of fundamental importance is the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed not least in Article 6 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ‘European Convention’). Two important cornerstones of the right to a fair trial are the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at one’s trial. The presumption of innocence means that anyone who is suspected or accused of an offence is to be considered innocent until proven guilty according to law. The right to be present at one’s own trial is essential to enable the suspect or the accused person to exercise their right and present their defence, etc. All EU Member States, including , have adopted Convention. The right to a fair trial – the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at one’s own trial – must therefore be upheld throughout Union. The Member States are also bound by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also includes guarantees for suspects and accused persons. However, for several years now the EU has been working actively on further strengthening the right to a fair trial within the Member States. The aim is to increase trust between the Member States and ultimately guarantee the mutual recognition of judgments and other judicial decisions between the Member States. During the course of this work, the EU has adopted several directives. One of the legal acts adopted is a directive specifically aimed at strengthening certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings: Directive (EU) 2016/343 of Parliament and of 2016. Our task has been to analyse how Swedish law relates to this Directive and propose the amendments necessary to implement the Directive in Swedish law. Scope of the Directive The Directive includes provisions on how the Member States should guarantee that the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at one’s own trial are upheld. Convention and the way in which it has been interpreted by Court of Human Rights set the tone for all of the provisions in the Directive. In this way, the Directive can be said to be a clarification of the case-law of Court of Human Rights. However, this does not mean that the Directive is identical to Convention in all respects. The Directive is limited to criminal proceedings. Therefore, it does not cover any other types of proceedings. In addition, the Directive contains a clear definition of what is meant by the term ‘criminal proceedings’. Administrative proceedings concerning matters such as tax surcharges, road traffic, etc. are clearly beyond the scope of the Directive. We have therefore interpreted the term on the basis of generally accepted definitions in the field of criminal law and in accordance with the way Swedish law in the area is organised. We consider that the Directive’s provisions are applicable in the processing of criminal cases, both in court and during the preliminary investigation. The scope of the Directive also includes summary proceedings, such as the summary imposition of a fine and the imposition of a breach-of-regulation fine. Other criminal proceedings that do not result in court proceedings, such as a process resulting in an abstention from prosecution, are also covered. The Directive also has a certain impact concerning international legal assistance in criminal cases. The Directive applies to suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. It therefore applies to natural persons, and the particular needs of vulnerable suspects or accused persons should be taken into account. The Directive applies from the moment at which a person becomes a suspect or an accused person. We consider that, where is concerned, this is normally when the suspect or the accused is charged on reasonable suspicion of committing an offence under Chapter 23, Section 18 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. However, the Directive urges that a certain approach be taken by criminal investigation authorities and law enforcement agencies, courts, etc. even before this point. The Directive also includes obligations in proceedings where no notification is necessary under Chapter 23, Section 18 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. It must be possible to assert the rights under the Directive until such time as the criminal proceedings are concluded. Existing legislation largely meets the Directive’s requirements The Directive can be said to consist of three different parts. The first part regulates the presumption of innocence and its various aspects. The second part deals with the right to be present at one’s own trial. This part also contains provisions on the right to a new trial in certain cases. The third part of the Directive concerns legal remedies. In our assessment, the Swedish legal system is largely structured in such a way that it already meets the Directive’s requirements. Both the right to be presumed innocent and the right to be present at one’s own trial are guaranteed in several ways. We also consider that the existing legal remedies offer adequate protection in cases in which one of these rights is disregarded. The presumption of innocence and the right to be present at one’s trial are guaranteed not least through the status of Convention as law. The presumption of innocence is a given starting point in criminal proceedings and there are several provisions in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure that reinforce its effect. Moreover, the main rule is that the suspect or the accused person must be present at their own trial, as is stated in Chapter 21, Section 2 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. The starting point for our work was thus that Swedish law already offers robust provision for the protection and upholding of the rights dealt with in the Directive. The presumption of innocence The first and overarching issue regarding the presumption of innocence was to analyse the extent to which the Directive assumes that this general legal principle is regulated by law. The presumption of innocence, i.e. that suspects and accused persons are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law, is not explicitly established in law in any other way than through the status of Convention as law. In our assessment, the Directive does not require that this general legal principle as such be regulated by law. We have also concluded that no added value would be created that, in itself, would justify regulation by law. Instead, we consider that the Directive is aimed at reinforcing certain aspects of the presumption of innocence. In this way, the presumption is made effective and usable in criminal proceedings. The Directive regulates three different aspects of the presumption of innocence: •A suspect or an accused person has the right not to be referred to as guilty until that person has been proven guilty according to law. •The burden of proof for establishing the guilt of the suspect or the accused person is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the suspect or accused person. •Suspects and accused persons have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate themselves. Most of our work therefore focused on analysing Swedish law on the basis of these different aspects and ensuring that the legal system meets these requirements. The first aspect – that suspects and accused persons must not be presented as guilty – has two different parts. Firstly, government agencies, officials and other public figures may not present suspects and accused persons as guilty in decisions or public statements made before any guilt has been determined. Secondly, Member States must take suitable measures to ensure that all suspects and accused persons are not presented as guilty, in court or in public, through the use of measures of physical restraint, such as handcuffs or foot irons – unless necessary for security reasons. In this regard, we do not consider that any legislative amendments are necessary to meet the requirements of the Directive. Here we refer, among other things, to the provisions on conflict of interest in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Moreover, the Swedish regulations can be considered to take a restrictive approach concerning the use of measures of physical restraint. The second aspect – the burden of proof on the prosecutor – has led to a similar conclusion. The principles of the prosecutor’s burden of proof and of every doubt benefiting the suspect or the accused person (this principle is usually called in dubio pro reo) are not regulated by law. However, it is clear that legal practitioners consider themselves bound by these principles. Deviations from these principles occur to a very limited extent and in exceptional situations. The principles are therefore natural starting points and the legal framework can be said to be sufficiently clear and precise for the Directive to be considered implemented in this regard. We therefore consider that no explicit regulation of the principle of the prosecutor’s burden of proof and the in dubio pro reo principle is necessary for implementation of the Directive. Concerning the third aspect of the presumption of innocence that the Directive deals with, i.e. the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, the Directive requires that suspects and accused persons have real opportunities to exercise their rights. However, the Directive does not contain any rules on the admissibility of evidence. But as a rule, the fact that a suspect or an accused person chooses to remain silent or not to contribute to the investigation into their guilt must not be considered in the court’s assessment of guilt. If the Directive is read in light of the case-law of Court of Human Rights, the implication appears to be that the accused person’s silence or unwillingness to contribute to the investigation must not be the only and decisive piece of evidence. There must be other substantial evidence in the investigation. We consider that the Swedish regulation with free examination of evidence is compatible with the Directive’s requirements in this regard. It is rarely the case that courts attach any negative probative value to the accused person’s passivity. One consequence of our conclusion that the Directive is compatible with the principle of the free examination of evidence is that the provision contained in Chapter 35, Section 4 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure – which gives a certain probative value to an accused person’s passivity – can be kept in its current wording. However, this provision should of course continue to be interpreted against the background of Convention. Regarding the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, we propose a minor amendment to the Preliminary Investigations Ordinance (1947:948). It is already the case that a suspect, when charged on reasonable suspicion of committing an offence, must be informed of their right to not make any statement about the suspected offence. Our proposal involves an addition to this obligation to inform. It is made clear that the suspect must also be informed of their right to not contribute to the investigation into their own guilt. In general, it can be noted that the legislative measures have already been taken to adapt Swedish law to Convention in terms of the authorities’ right to request information from individuals. The right to be present at the trial The Directive is based on the notion that anyone who is suspected or accused of a crime must have the right to be present at their own trial. However, a decision can be issued and enforced even if the suspect or the accused person has not been present. For this to be possible, certain conditions must have been met. Put simply, one of two conditions must have been met. Either the suspect or the accused person must have been informed in due time about the trial and received information about the implications of failing to be present, or he or she must be entitled to a re-examination. If the suspect or the accused person has not been informed about the trial in this way, a decision can still be issued and enforced if he or she is entitled to a re-trial or other legal remedy enabling a re-examination of the merits of the case. specific requirements apply to the re-examination. Apart from the fact that it must enable a re-exami- nation of the merits of the case, including examination of any new evidence, it must also be able to result in the original decision being reversed. Suspects and accused persons must have the right to be present at the re-examination, they must be able to participate effectively, and they must have the opportunity to exercise their right of the defence. The provisions apply to the trial in the lower court and the upper court. Swedish law largely meets these requirements. The system is based on the accused person being present at their trial. It should also be mentioned that there are special provisions for young offenders, where the requirement that the accused person be present is strictly observed. The exceptions that are permitted where is concerned, i.e. the cases in which Swedish law allows the case to be examined in the absence of the accused person, are based on the investigation having been satisfactory. Moreover, as a general rule, the accused person must have voluntarily renounced their right to be present at the trial. The more detailed conditions for when a decision can be issued in a criminal case despite the fact that the accused person has not been present at the main hearing are contained in Chapter 46, Section 15a of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. Under Chapter 45, Section 9, second paragraph of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the accused person must have been served with the court summons as well as the prosecutor’s summons application. The accused person must also have been summoned to the hearing and given information about the trial and the consequences of failing to be present. However, there is one provision that allows deviations from the main principles. Chapter 46, Section 15a, third paragraph of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure states that a criminal case may, in certain situations, be settled in the absence of the accused person despite the fact that he or she has not been served with a summons to the hearing. This is the case in situations where the accused person has been proven to have absconded or is intentionally hiding in such a way that he or she cannot be brought to the hearing. In such cases, a decision can be issued in the case despite the fact that the accused person has not been informed about the trial. does not guarantee the accused person an automatic right to a reexamination either. It is therefore considered that this system does not meet the Directive’s requirements. We therefore propose that this provision be removed. This means that in these cases too, the accused person must have been served with a summons containing information about the possibility of a decision being issued in the case despite the fact that he or she is not present. The existing provision in Chapter 46, Section 15a, third paragraph of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure should only be applied in exceptional cases. There are also more methods of service available now than when the provision was introduced. The removal of the provision should therefore not affect efficiency in criminal proceedings to any major extent. Other issues analysed include the provisions allowing written processing in criminal proceedings, the regulation on abstention from prosecution and the possibilities of issuing a summary imposition of a fine and an imposition of a breach-of-regulation fine. In our assessment, these procedures meet the requirements of the Directive and no legislative amendments are necessary. lag om ändring i (1942:740) Härigenom föreskrivs1 i fråga om (1942:740) att 46 kap. 15 a § ska ha följande lydelse. Kan saken utredas tillfredsställande, får målet avgöras trots att den tilltalade har inställt sig endast genom ombud eller har uteblivit, om 1.det inte finns anledning att döma till annan påföljd än böter, fängelse , villkorlig dom eller skyddstillsyn eller sådana påföljder i förening, 2.den tilltalade, sedan han eller hon har delgetts stämning, har avvikit eller håller sig undan på ett sådant sätt att han eller hon inte kan hämtas till huvudförhandlingen eller 3.den tilltalade lider av en allvarlig psykisk störning och hans eller hennes närvaro därför inte är nödvändig. Första stycket 1 gäller också vid förverkande av villkorligt medgiven frihet från fängelse om det inte finns anledning att förverka en strafftid som, sammantagen med ett fängelsestraff som döms ut, överstiger . Ett beslut enligt 34 kap. 3 § ska likställas med de påföljder som anges i första stycket 1. 1Jfr och rådets direktivet 2016/343/EU av om förstärkning av vissa aspekter av oskuldspresumtionen och av rätten att närvara vid rättegången i straffrättsliga förfaranden. 2Senaste lydelse 2016:492. I de fall som avses i första stycket 2 får målet avgöras även om den tilltalade inte har delgetts kallelse till förhandlingen. Rättegångsfrågor får avgöras trots att den tilltalade har uteblivit. Denna lag träder i kraft . förordning om ändring i förundersökningskungörelsen (1947:948) Härigenom föreskrivs3 att 12 § förundersökningskungörelsen (1947:948)4 ska ha följande lydelse. I samband med att den som skäligen misstänks för brott underrättas om misstanken ska han eller hon också underrättas om sin rätt att –anlita biträde av försvarare och att under vissa förutsättningar få en offentlig försvarare förordnad, –få information om förändringar av misstanken och ta del av utredningsmaterial i den utsträckning som följer av 23 kap. 18 § , –vid behov biträdas av tolk och få handlingar som är väsentliga för att kunna ta till vara sin rätt översatta, och – inte behöva yttra sig över – inte behöva yttra sig över misstanken och inte heller i övrigt behöva medverka till utredningen av sin egen skuld. Den misstänkte ska få informationen på ett språk som han eller hon förstår. Om det enligt 23 kap. 22 § inte har genomförts en förundersökning ska den misstänkte underrättas enligt första stycket senast när åtal väcks eller i samband med att en klagan om undanröjande av ett strafföreläggande eller ett föreläggande av ordningsbot ges in till domstol. Denna förordning träder i kraft . 3Jfr och rådets direktiv /343/EU av om förstärkning av vissa aspekter av oskuldspresumtionen och av rätten att närvara vid rättegången i straffrättsliga förfaranden. 4Kungörelsen omtryckt 1969:589. 5Senaste lydelse 2014:260. 2Utredningens uppdrag och arbete Frågan om processuella rättigheter har länge funnits på EU:s dagordning. Under det svenska ordförandeskapet i EU, , antogs en resolution om en färdplan för att stärka misstänktas och tilltalades processuella rättigheter vid straffrättsliga förfaranden. De åtgärder som ska vidtas kan omfatta såväl lagstiftning som andra åtgärder. De rättigheter som pekas ut i färdplanen är: a)rätten till översättning och tolkning, b)information om rättigheter och anklagelsen, c)juridisk rådgivning och rättshjälp, d)kommunikation med släktingar, arbetsgivare och konsulära myndigheter, samt e)särskilda skyddsåtgärder för utsatta misstänkta eller tilltalade personer. I färdplanen anges vidare att strategin för arbetet ska vara att fokusera på en eller ett par rättigheter i taget i ett steg för steg-förfarande. Det första steget i färdplanen, ett direktiv om rätt till översättning och tolkning vid straffrättsliga förfaranden, antogs . Direktivet har lett till vissa anpassningar i svensk rätt.1 Anpassningarna innebar bl.a. skärpta regler för tillhandahållande av tolkning vid domstolssammanträden och polisförhör. Det andra steget i färdplanen, ett direktiv om rätten till information vid straffrättsliga för- 2012/13:132. Utredningens uppdrag och arbete faranden, antogs . Även detta direktiv medförde vissa lagändringar.2 Ändringarna innebar bl.a. att den som anhålls eller häktas har en uttrycklig rätt att ta del av de omständigheter som ligger till grund för beslutet om anhållande eller häktning. antogs ett direktiv om rätt till tillgång till försvarare i straffrättsliga förfaranden och förfaranden i samband med en europeisk arresteringsorder m.m. (EU:s försvarardirektiv). Direktivet genomförde del av steg tre och steg fyra i färdplanen. De anpassningar i svensk rätt som direktivet förde med sig består bl.a. i en uttrycklig regel om att ett barn som har frihetsberövats ska ha rätt att få en närstående underrättad om skälen för frihetsberövandet.3 En misstänkt som är frihetsberövad och företräds av en offentlig försvarare, eller en privat försvarare som uppfyller motsvarande krav, får en oinskränkt rätt att träffa och samtala i enrum med sin försvarare. Dessa förändringar trädde i kraft . I samband med att välkomnade färdplanen 2009 underströks att den inte är uttömande. Kommissionen uppmanades att undersöka behovet av en komplettering när det gäller minimiregler för processuella rättigheter för misstänkta och tilltalade. Den uppmanades också att bedöma om andra frågor, t.ex. oskuldspresumtionen, behövde behandlas i syftet att förbättra samarbetet på området. Detta har lett till att kommissionen presenterat ytterligare förslag gällande processuella rättigheter för att ytterligare stärka rättssäkerhetsgarantierna för misstänkta och tilltalade i straffrättsliga förfaranden. antogs och rådets direktiv /343/EU om förstärkning av vissa aspekter av oskuldspresumtionen och av rätten att närvara vid rättegången i straffrättsliga förfaranden (oskuldspresumtionsdirektivet). Något senare, , antogs och rådets direktiv /800/EU om rättssäkerhetsgarantier för barn som är misstänkta eller tilltalade i straffrättsliga förfaranden. Detta direktiv är däremot, till skillnad från oskuldspresumtionsdirektivet, en del av färdplanen. En del av färdplanen, steg tre och steg fyra, är också /1919/EU om rättshjälp för misstänkta och tilltalade i straffrättsliga förfaranden och för eftersökta personer i 2013/14:157. 2015/16:187. Utredningens uppdrag och arbete förfaranden i samband med en europeisk arresteringsorder. Direktivet, som antogs , avser att komplettera EU:s försvarardirektiv. Direktivet ska vara genomfört . Regeringen beslutade att tillkalla en särskild utredare med uppgift att genomföra två av de senast antagna EU-direktiven på området. De EU-direktiv som omfattas av uppdraget är mer specifikt det som tar sikte på oskuldspresumtionen och rätten att närvara vid rättegången samt det som gäller misstänkta och tilltalade barns rättigheter. Vi har, i enlighet med utredningsdirektiven, lagt upp arbetet i två faser. I detta delbetänkande redovisas resultatet av arbetet under den första fasen. Den fasen avser genomförandet av oskuldspresumtionsdirektivet. Direktivet ska vara genomfört . I denna del av uppdraget ingår följaktligen att analysera svensk rätt i ljuset av direktivet och om nödvändigt lämna förslag till författningsändringar. I de fall vi bedömer att svensk rätt redan uppfyller förpliktelserna enligt direktivet har vi, enligt vårt uppdrag, att redovisa skälen till detta. 2.3Målet: Att garantera ett ömsesidigt erkännande av domar och rättsliga avgöranden EU har satt som mål att bevara och utveckla ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa.