sou · H5B346 · 2017-06-01 00:00:00 — We have also been given the possi- bility of analysing other closely related questions concerning order and security in the courts. We have therefore analysed photography into a courtroom, the framing of the exemptions from the security check, security at psychiatry hearings and the need for stronger secrecy protection for information in courts’ reporting of incidents and in drawings of court . Better order and higher security in the courts There is, generally speaking, good order and a high level of security in the courts. Rowdiness, threats and other disturbances of order are relatively rare occurrences and most professional participants feel that there is good order both in and outside the courts. But problems do occur and prosecutors, in particular, make some criticisms of order and security in the courts. Our assessment is that there are problems in several different areas, see below. Even if work on order and security largely functions well, there is still a need to improve order and enhance security in court. Better order at hearings A stronger role for the presiding judge Parts of the legal framework are unclear and not fully geared to the challenges that the courts face today. Some criticism has also been made of how presiding judges handle disturbances. We propose that the presiding judge be given greater possibilities when disturbances occur and a clearer responsibility for maintaining order at the court’s hearings. The presiding judge should also be able to make decisions alone in more questions of order than at present. Effective measures to address disturbances and inappropriate behaviour It should be possible to refuse a person who disturbs a hearing or behaves in an inappropriate way entry to the premises of the court or the other premises being used at the hearing. Decisions should be taken by the presiding judge. Entry may be refused if a person who has been ejected from the courtroom returns or if someone does not comply in some other way with an instruction issued by the judge so as to maintain order. We also propose clarifying the rules on ejection from the court- room. There should be a clear statement of how long an ejection order lasts and that the provisions on being able to follow the hearing via an audio feed or an audio and video feed are applicable if a party causing a disturbance is ejected. The possibility of detaining a person who is causing a disturbance is obsolete and should be removed. A possibility of delegating tasks If members of the public are following the hearing from a side room or from behind a glass wall in the courtroom, it may be difficult for the presiding judge to notice and take action against disturbing and inappropriate behaviour. We propose that in such situations the presiding judge should be able to delegate tasks that should not be performed by legally trained judges to a officer or a public security officer. Better order with the aid of rules of conduct Rules of conduct in waiting rooms and public areas are used by the courts, but there are no clear regulations in this area. We propose making it clear that the court should be able to issue the rules of conduct needed in premises and areas used by the court to which the public has access. Breaking the court’s rules of conduct should be an offence. This would, for instance, enable the court’s public order officers to refuse a person who does not comply with the rules of conduct entry to the premises of the court or to remove them from these premises. Better adapted use of penal sanctions Not all the acts covered by current penal provisions are so repre- hensible that they should be punished at all. We propose that in minor cases no criminal responsibility should be imposed for a procedural offence. This is in line with the case law that is already being applied. With the current regulations it is not clear what possibilities the court has of taking action against objects used as instrumentalities in disturbances and prohibited conduct during trials. This can, for instance, apply to mobile phones that are used for filming during proceedings or left behind to record the court's deliberations in private. We propose that the court should be able to declare objects confiscated if they have been used as instrumentalities in certain offences committed before the court. Confiscation should not be permitted if it is manifestly unreasonable. Greater safety for parties and witnesses It should be possible to use side rooms for reasons of order and security Directing the public to a side room creates better conditions for secure and orderly hearings in cases where the public would other- wise have disturbed order or tried to frighten, threaten and influence parties and witnesses by using subtle means. This can, for instance, be important in cases that concern or have links to organised crime or criminal activities of gangs and in which there may be visible references to certain groups and their violent nature. At present, however, this is not regulated expressly in the law. We propose that the text of the law should clearly state that side rooms may be used for reasons of order and security. If there are reasons to do so, the presiding judge should be able to order that the public will have to follow a hearing via an audio and video feed in a side room instead of in the courtroom. In assessing whether there are reasons for a decision to use a side room special con- sideration shall be given to (1) whether it can be assumed that the public will disturb the hearing or otherwise behave inappropriately in the courtroom, (2) whether someone who has to take part in the proceedings feels afraid of the public, and (3) whether it can be assumed that someone who has to take part in the hearing has been subjected to pressure. If there are special reasons, the presiding judge should be able to allow family members, representatives of the media and some members of the public to be present in the court- room. effective action against pressure Our assessment is that the courts should be given better possi- bilities of countering subtle threats, harassment and other pressure placed on crime victims, witnesses and others. We propose that the presiding judge should be able to eject a party or a member of the public who subjects a person being examined to pressure in the courtroom. The possibility of ejecting a party or member of the public should also apply during, for example, a statement of the facts that precedes the examination of an injured party and parts of a hearing other than examinations. If there are special reasons, the presiding judge should be able to order that a member of the public who is subjecting a person being examined to pressure should be expelled from the premises of the court. This should also apply when a person being examined is not free to tell the truth out of fear or for some other reason on account of the presence of the party or the member of the public. Expanded possibilities of attending by video conference We propose expanding the possibilities for frightened or vulnerable people to be able to chiefly take part in a hearing by video con- . When making an assessment of whether there are reasons to allow someone who is afraid to come to the court to attend by video conference in the first place there should no longer be a requirement that their fear is substantial. The presiding judge should also be able to order attendance by video conference in the first place if it can be assumed that someone who has to take part in the hearing has been subjected to pressure. The text of the law we pro- pose also makes clear that security reasons can be a justification for someone to attend a hearing by video conference in the first place. A ban of certain clothing and symbols It sometimes happens that persons who belong to criminal net- works or other organisations that are felt to be threatening openly wear clothing or symbols linked to that network or organisation in court. Our assessment is that a general ban on wearing certain clothing, emblems and symbols in court should not be introduced. A direct ban on the clothing and symbols of certain listed organi- sations requires an amendment to the Constitution. Problems linked to the wearing by members of the public and others of identifying marks that can be viewed as threatening or as pressure on parties and witnesses are better addressed by directing the members of the public to a side room or by allowing the vulnerable person to attend by video conference. As mentioned above, we also propose that it should be possible to eject a person who exercises pressure from the courtroom and refuse them entry to the court . One example could be persons who stare intensively or make unpleasant gestures in addition to wearing the identifying marks concerned. These proposals give the courts good possibilities of both preventing and taking action against the problems that can follow from parties and members of the public wearing certain clothes and symbols in court. Clear and effective rules about electronic equipment There are problems in how mobile phones and other electronic equipment are used in the courts. This equipment can, for instance, be used for photography and filming in courtrooms and to record the court’s deliberations in private. We propose a clear main rule: electronic equipment that can disturb order or be used to record or transmit images must be switched off in the courtroom and other- wise be handled so that that it cannot be used in a prohibited way. This means that it should normally be properly stowed. The open handling of electronic equipment that can disturb order or be used for photography and filming should not normally be permitted in the courtroom. So as not to prevent the legitimate use of electronic equipment it should be possible to decide on exemptions in the court’s rules of conduct. The presiding judge should also be able to issue exemp- tions and should not be bound by the exemptions determined by the court. A possibility of banning electronic equipment in the courtroom We propose that the text of the law should state that the presiding judge may ban electronic equipment in the courtroom. The pre- siding judge should be able to issue such a ban if it can be assumed that electronic equipment may be used in a prohibited way or if there are other reasons of exceptional importance. It should be possible to decide on exemptions in the court’s rules of conduct. The exemptions determined by the court should not be binding on the presiding judge. It should be an offence to bring electronic equipment into the court in contravention of a ban. It should be possible to confiscate electronic equipment brought into a court- room in contravention of a ban. How should a ban be checked? It should be possible to use a security check to prevent electronic equipment being brought into the courtroom. This should be per- mitted if it is possible to arrange a security check and if such a check is also needed to limit the risk of someone bringing elec- tronic equipment into a courtroom in contravention of a ban issued by the presiding judge. It should also be possible to perform a frisk search and to examine bags and other objects found in premises covered by the security check. Photography in the courtroom Photography in court can both disturb order and be sensitive in terms of privacy, not least in view of the risk of the photos and films being spread on social media. We propose that there should be a clear statement that the ban on photography – which also applies if the intention is to publish the image in media protected by the Constitution – is also applicable in a situation when some- one takes photographs or films into a courtroom. When a hearing is not in progress, the presiding judge should be able to allow someone to take photographs or films in or into a courtroom. penalty for a breach of the ban on photography should be increased from a monetary fine to imprisonment for six months. Photography in waiting rooms and public areas For reasons of order and privacy, individuals should, in principle, not be allowed to photograph other persons in waiting rooms and other public areas in the courts. We propose that a visual recording of a person who is in other premises and areas in a court that are accessible to the public may only be made if it is justifiable in view of its purpose and the other circumstances. As a rule, photography that takes place as part of news coverage in media protected by the Constitution should be considered justifiable and therefore per- mitted. A possibility to use camera surveillance of courtrooms The present framing of the ban on photography prevents the giving of a permit for camera surveillance of courtrooms in attack situa- tions. The officers and public order officers who have to respond to an assault alarm need information about the situation in the courtroom so as to avoid exposing themselves or others to unnecessary risks. We propose that a visual recording in or a visual transmission from the courtroom should be permitted if someone has set off an assault alarm in the courtroom. Spreading of pictures and films Legislation against the spreading of pictures and films from trial situations should be coordinated with the proposals made by the Inquiry on modern and strong penal protection for personal pri- vacy (SOU 2016:7). We propose that it should be an offence to in- vade someone else’s privacy by spreading pictures from trial situa- tions. Criminal responsibility should only apply to spreading that was liable to result in a painful loss to the person the picture is about. The ban should not apply to the area protected by the Constitution. Photography outside the court No ban should be introduced on photography and filming outside the court or the premises. effective and uniform security check We propose limiting the exemptions from the security check in courts to court employees and lay judges, prosecutors and members of the , as well as officers who are in the premises of the court as part of their duties. Interpreters, legal counsel who are not members of the and other persons acting in a public employment or a public appoint- ment should no longer have a general exemption. The possibilities of making exemptions for other groups that are set out in the current law should be retained. As is the case today, special reasons should be required to grant an exemption. The period of validity of decisions on security checks should be extended to at most six months. Higher security at psychiatry hearings Binding security requirements should be introduced The security at oral proceedings that the administrative courts hold at healthcare institutions needs to be improved. We propose the introduction of binding security requirements. There should be a clear statement that the requirements for good security in services that apply under the acts on compulsory psychiatric care also apply to oral proceedings held at the healthcare institution concerned. Video conferences at psychiatry proceedings The main rule should continue to be that oral proceedings are held at the healthcare institution. However, we propose that the acts on compulsory psychiatric care should state explicitly that the patient, the senior consultant physician and other persons may take part in the hearing by audio feed or audio and video feed. video conference should not be permitted if it is inappropriate in view of the purpose of the person's appearance and the other circum- stances. The presiding judge should be able to make decisions in matters concerning attendance by audio feed or by audio and video feed. Stronger secrecy protection for incident reports There is sensitive information about work on order and security in the courts that is not covered by existing provisions on secrecy. We propose strengthening secrecy for information in the incident reports of the courts, the Swedish Prosecution Authority and the Swedish Economic Crime Authority. Secrecy should be extended to apply to such information if the disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the work on order and security in the activities of the court or the authority. Secrecy should apply to information in an official document for a maximum of forty years. The right to communicate and publish information should take precedence to the obligation to observe secrecy that follows from the new secrecy provision. No special secrecy protection should be introduced for the names and the personal data of individuals in incident reports or for infor- mation about court . Legislation outside the Code of Judicial Procedure The new and amended provisions in the Code of Judicial Procedure should be applicable to the procedure of the administrative courts and to the processing of court matters. We also propose that it should be possible to place a party in another room to listen and view exami- nations for the taking of evidence from a party in a general admini- strative court. Impacts of the proposals These proposals ought to lead to safer, securer and more efficient court cases since the number of interruptions during hearings, cancellations of hearings and other negative impacts of a lack of order and security in the courts will decrease. The proposals can be handled within existing cost limits. When should the changes be implemented? We propose that the new provisions should enter into force on 1 2018. There is no need for transitional provisions. Vid ett sammanträde som hålls inom stängda dörrar får rättens ordförande tillåta en tjänsteman vid domstolen eller den som tjänst- gör vid domstolen i utbildnings- syfte att närvara. Om det finns särskilda skäl, får rättens ordför- ande tillåta även andra att när-31 lag om ändring i Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om dels att 5 kap. 2 §, 3 §, 4 §, 5 § och 9 §, 10 §, 12 §, 9 kap. 5 § och 36 kap. 18 § ska ha följande lydelse, dels att det ska införas nio nya paragrafer, 5 kap. 8 a §, 9 a §, 9 b §, 9 c §, 9 d §, 13 §, 14 §, 15 § och 9 kap. 5 a §, av följande lydelse. Nuvarande lydelse Föreslagen lydelse Tillträde till offentlig förhand- Om det finns skäl för det, får ling må, när rättens ordförande rättens ordförande besluta att den finner skäl därtill, vägras den som som är eller kan antas vara under enligt vad är känt eller må an- inte får närvara vid ett tagas ej fyllt . Vid förhandling inom stängda dörrar må efter medgivande av rättens ordförande tjänsteman vid domstolen så ock den som för sin utbildning tjänstgör vid denna vara närvarande. När särskilda skäl äro därtill, må rätten med- giva även annan att närvara vid 1 Senaste lydelse 1974:239. vara vid ett sådant sammanträde. inom stängda dörrar och har det inom stängda dörrar och har det då lagts fram uppgift, för vilken då lagts fram uppgift, för vilken det hos domstolen gäller sekre- det hos domstolen gäller sekre- tess som avses i offentlighets- tess som avses i offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400), (2009:400), får rätten besluta att uppgiften får rättens ordförande besluta att inte får uppenbaras. uppgiften inte får uppenbaras. beslut ska hållas inom stängda beslut ska hållas inom stängda dörrar, om rätten inte finner att det kan ske offentligt. inte finner att det kan ske offent- får, förutom rättens ledamöter, rättens ledamöter, närvara endast tjänsteman som har att ta befatt- ning med målet. har att ta befattning med målet. särskilda skäl får rätten tillåta även När det finns särskilda skäl får annan att närvara vid sådan över- annan att närvara vid sådan över- Avkunnande av dom eller beslut ska ske offentligt. I den ut- sträckning domen eller beslutet innehåller uppgift som omfattas av beslut om sekretess enligt 43 kap. 8 § andra stycket offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400), ska dock avkunnandet ske inom stängda dörrar. En domstol får meddela de ord- ningsregler som behövs i lokaler och utrymmen som disponeras av 2Senaste lydelse 2009:401. 3Senaste lydelse 2016:502. Rättens ordförande ska upp- rätthålla ordningen vid rättens sammanträden och meddela de ordningsregler som behövs. Ord- föranden får också begränsa an- talet åhörare i rättssalen för att undvika trängsel.Ordföranden får delegera upp- gifter som avses i första stycket till en polisman eller ordningsvakt. Uppgifter som bör utföras av lag- farna domare får inte delegeras. domstolen och är tillgängliga för allmänheten. Det ankommer på rättens ord- förande att upprätthålla ordning- en vid rättens sammanträden och att meddela de ordningsregler som behövs. Ordföranden får utvisa den som stör förhandlingen eller på annat sätt uppträder otill- börligt. Ordföranden får också begränsa antalet åhörare i rätts- salen för att undvika trängsel. En bildupptagning i eller en bildöverföring från rättssalen får ske endast om det följer av lag. Rätten får förbjuda annans ljud- upptagning eller ljudöverföring under ett förhör, om det kan antas att upptagningen eller överföringen besvärar den som hörs i sådan grad att det blir till men för utred- ningen. Om någon som har utvisats tränger sig in i rättssalen eller om någon i övrigt inte lyder en till- sägelse som har meddelats för att upprätthålla ordningen, får rätten besluta att han eller hon omedel- bart skall häktas och kvarbli i häkte så länge sammanträdet pågår, dock inte längre än . Om säkerhetskontroll i domstol finns särskilda föreskrifter. 4 Senaste lydelse 2005:683. Rättens ordförande får visa ut den som stör ett sammanträde eller på annat sätt uppträder olämpligt. Om en part visas ut gäller 36 kap. 18 § tredje stycket i tillämpliga delar. Om någon som har visats ut återvänder till rättssalen eller om någon i övrigt inte rättar sig efter en tillsägelse av ordföranden, får ordföranden besluta att han eller hon ska avvisas från domstolens lokaler eller de andra lokaler som används vid sammanträdet. Om ordföranden inte bestäm- mer något annat, upphör ett beslut om utvisning att gälla när sam- manträdet har avslutats och ett beslut om avvisning när samman- trädet avslutats för dagen. En bildupptagning i eller in i en rättssal är tillåten endast om det följer av lag. När sammanträde inte pågår, får rättens ordförande tillåta att bilder tas upp i eller in i en rättssal. En bildupptagning av någon som befinner sig i andra lokaler och utrymmen i en domstol som är tillgängliga för allmänheten är tillåten endast om den med hän- syn till syftet och övriga omstän- digheter är försvarlig. Det som sägs om bildupptag- ningar i första och andra stycket gäller även bildöverföringar från sådana lokaler och utrymmen. Rättens ordförande får förbjuda en part, åhörare eller någon annan att ta upp ljud eller överföra ljud under ett förhör, om det kan an- tas att upptagningen eller överför- ingen stör den som hörs i sådan grad att det påverkar utredningen negativt. Elektronisk utrustning som kan störa ordningen eller användas för att ta upp eller överföra bilder ska vara avstängd i rättssalen och i övrigt hanteras så att den inte kan användas på ett otillåtet sätt. Om det kan antas att utrust- ning som avses i första stycket kan komma att användas på ett otillåtet sätt eller det finns andra skäl av synnerlig vikt, får rättens ordför- ande förbjuda sådan utrustning i rättssalen. I domstolens ordningsregler får det beslutas om undantag från bestämmelserna i första och andra stycket. Ordföranden får, oavsett vad domstolen bestämt, bestämma vilka undantag som ska gälla vid sammanträdet. I lagen (1981:1064) om säker- hetskontroll i domstol finns be- stämmelser om när säkerhetskon- troll får användas för att begränsa risken för att utrustning som avses i första stycket förs in i en rättssal.