sou · H7B349 · 2019-11-26 00:00:00 — Other aspects that must also be safeguarded are also covered by the term ‘terrorist offence’ – such as the functioning of public administration, key societal func- tions and supply systems, and our open and safe society. There is no case-law to suggest that the current scope of application of the offence is anything other than what essentially can be considered intended, appropriate or fit for purpose. Nonetheless, the Inquiry has carefully considered the possibility of increasing the detail in the objective criterion for a terrorist offence (the requirement that the act could have seriously damaged a state) in light of the predictability and clarity required under the principle of legality; on overall assessment, however, the Inquiry has not presented any proposals for a more precise description of the criterion in the legislative text. However, the Inquiry proposes several other changes to the term ‘terrorist offence’: •In the objective criterion, the reference to serious damage to a state should be changed to refer to such damage to a country. This change underlines the fact that terrorist offences often target society in a broad sense and not just state structures and public authorities. It also better adapts the definition of ‘terrorist offence’ to the form of terrorism that takes place in countries with deficient or non-existent state structures. •One of the subjective criteria should be changed to cover acts committed with the intent to seriously intimidate a population or a section of a population; the latter term has been changed from the previously used term population group. ‘A section of a popu- lation’ means both a large heterogeneous part of the population and a more limited circle or group of people in the population, such as an ethnic minority, a people, individuals with foreign backgrounds, LGBTQ people, individuals with a particular reli- gious affiliation or other sections of the population. The threat of terrorism in the form of acts targeting the civilian population in a society is diverse in terms of its target group, and all sections of the population have an equal interest in the open and safe society that the anti-terrorism legislation is intended to protect. How- ever, it should be stressed that the anti-terrorism legislation – un- like the hate crime legislation in the Swedish Criminal Code – is not intended to give certain particularly vulnerable and collect- ively determined groups, or individuals belonging to such groups, special protection under criminal law. In cases where serious politically or otherwise ideologically motivated crime is not con- sidered to constitute a terrorist offence, the acts committed can result in penalties for other offences, such as murder or devasta- tion endangering the public. Under Chapter 29, Section 2, point 7 of the Swedish Criminal Code, one of the circumstances that can be considered aggravating when setting a penalty is that a motive for the offence was to abuse a person, a population group or another such group of individuals on grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religious belief, sexual orientation, transgender iden- tity or expression, or other similar circumstance. •In the provision on terrorist offences there would no longer be a list of what offences can be considered terrorist offences. Instead, it should be possible to consider any offence under Swedish law a terrorist offence, provided the objective and any of the subjec- tive criteria are met. Reforming the term ‘terrorist offence’ in this way would simplify the regulation considerably and contribute to more fit-for-purpose and enduring legislation. The terrorist threat varies from one period to another, and the targets and methods used vary over time. This change would also better adapt the offence to the examination that should be carried out for terrorist offences regarding whether an attack that is concentrated in time and location – which can include a considerable number of injured parties and various criminal acts – was, in its entirety, intended to seriously damage a country or an intergovernmental organisation. The offences of financing, public provocation, recruitment, training and should be simplified and expanded The offences of financing, public provocation, recruitment, training and should be kept in the new act and termed financing of terrorism, public provocation to commit a terrorist act, recruitment for terrorism, training for terrorism and for the purpose of terrorism. These provisions are necessary to fulfil international com- mitments and help ensure that acts linked to terrorism that are worthy of penalties are criminalised in a credible and effective way. However, parts of the regulation seem to overlap and lack clarity and should therefore be simplified. In certain respects, the legislation should also be expanded. In these areas, the Inquiry proposes the following: •The criminalisation of financing and recruitment for the purposes of committing or otherwise assisting in attempting, preparation or conspiracy to commit a terrorist offence should be removed from the legislation. With the new act that the Inquiry is pro- posing – which includes the offence of collaboration with a terror- ist organisation – there is no longer a need for such a regulation to fulfil international commitments. Retaining it would also lead to a lack of clarity. There are also further reasons behind this con- sideration. A similar change should be made regarding the offence of for the purpose of terrorism. •Criminal responsibility for public provocation to commit a terro- rist act should also cover provocation to commit the offences of recruitment for terrorism, training for terrorism and for the purpose of terrorism. Broadening the scope in this way would help to more comprehensively encompass messages and pro- paganda of such a nature that offers general support for terrorism, such as provocations to obtain training in techniques associated with weapons and explosives so as to commit a terrorist offence. For the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist act, a more severe scale of penalties should apply than if the criminal provision on inciting rebellion contained in the Swedish Criminal Code were the only provision applicable. •The training offence should be broadened to also cover those who issue instructions to someone with the intention that these will be used for a terrorist offence. The current legislation requires that the person providing the training is aware that the person receiving the training has terrorist intentions. Moreover, the spe- cific instrumentalities currently specified in the training offence should be replaced with a more general regulation. Developments in recent years have shown that terrorist attacks can be carried out using aeroplanes or motor vehicles, for example. In addition to this, an increased dependence on electronic communications and digital information and management systems has opened the door to other forms of well-planned terrorist attacks against key societal functions and supply systems. In such attacks, know- ledge about the production and use of computer viruses or other software could be crucial to carrying out the offence. Taking the offence of preparation in the Swedish Criminal Code as the model, criminal responsibility should therefore refer to instrumentalities that are particularly liable to be used in a terrorist offence. Such a provision is better suited to the current realities of terrorist crime, and it can also cover instructions for such instrumental- ities that may emerge in the future. The scales of penalties should be more severe for some offences The interests that the criminal anti-terrorism legislation is intended to protect are of great importance, and this should be reflected in the scales of penalties for the various types of offences. The scales of penalties for the offences of financing of terrorism, public provo- cation to commit a terrorist act, recruitment for terrorism and train- ing for terrorism have remained unchanged since the introduction of the Financing Act and the Recruitment Act. Since then, recruit- ment to terrorist organisations, financing of terrorism and public provocation to commit a terrorist act have, in general, developed and taken on new forms. In certain cases, recruitment for or financing of terrorism may be of particular importance to the possibility of con- ducting terrorist activities, such as more organised and well-planned terrorist acts within terrorist organisations that participate in armed conflicts abroad. The same applies to attacks that have taken place or could take place in and other parts of Europe or the world. According to the law enforcement authorities, in there are now more potential lone actors and expanding networks of actors with intentions to commit a terrorist offence, including with inter- national ramifications. Overall, developments over time have been such that there is reason to take a more serious view of terrorist offences than previously. This applies not least to terrorist offences that, from a criminal law perspective, often correspond to prepara- tion or planning under the rules contained in Chapter 23 of the Swedish Criminal Code. The Inquiry also has an explicit remit, under the terms of reference, to effect more severe penalties for offences covered by the criminal anti-terrorism legislation. However, there have been a limited number of convictions, and a certain degree of caution is therefore necessary when making changes to the existing scales of penalties. The Inquiry proposes that the maximum penalties for regular offences and the minimum penalties for gross offences be increased for all offences included in the proposed act, apart from terrorist offences and the offence. An increase in the maximum penalty for regular offences may offer greater scope for the courts to impose more nuanced penalties in each individual case. An increase in the minimum penalties for gross offences would better reflect the seri- ousness of this type of offence and would also mean upgrading the gross offences that have a penal value that exceeds the minimum penalty. The aim is not to raise the bar for what offences should be considered gross. The Inquiry proposes the following scales of penalties: •The penalty for a terrorist offence should be imprisonment for a fixed term, at least four years and at most eighteen years, or for life. If the offence is less serious, the penalty should be imprison- ment for at least two and at most six years. •The penalty for collaboration with a terrorist organisation should be imprisonment for at most four years. If the offence is gross, the penalty should be imprisonment for at least one year and six months and at most seven years. •The penalty for the offences of financing of terrorism, public provocation to commit a terrorist act, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism should be imprisonment for at most three years. If the offence is gross, the penalty should be imprison- ment for at least one year and at most six years. •The penalty for the offence of for the purpose of terrorism should be imprisonment for at most two years. Under the proposed act, these offences should be considered to be of such a nature that the penalty should be imprisonment, even if the penal value in itself or previous offences do not call for this. A general rule on more severe penalties should be introduced The current rule on more severe penalties in the Act on Criminal Responsibility for Terrorist is complex and only covers certain offences, such as theft, extortion and falsification of docu- ments, that are committed with the intent to promote a terrorist offence. In the Inquiry’s view, such a provision has no place in con- certed legislation that is intended to be clear, orderly and logical. Offences with a link to terrorism may also mean acts of other kinds, for example breach of data security, firearms offences or other offences, such as trafficking in human beings and narcotics offences, which, at least in an international context, are committed to promote terrorist activities. A general rule on more severe penalties should therefore be introduced in the proposed act to cover all offences committed with the intention of promoting a terrorist offence or other offences covered by the proposed act. This would help to further strengthen protection against terrorism under criminal law. The regulations on particularly serious crime cannot be removed, but should refer to offences under Swedish law The current regulations on particularly serious crime were designed to ensure that criminal responsibility for the offences of financing of terrorism, public provocation to commit a terrorist act, recruit- ment for terrorism, training for terrorism and for the purpose of terrorism is applicable in relation to what constitutes a terrorist offence under the EU Terrorism Directive, the UN’s International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and on the Prevention of Terrorism. The EU Directive contains its own definition of what constitutes a terrorist offence, which in Swedish law corresponds to a terrorist offence under the Act on Criminal Responsibility for Terrorist . Under the UN Convention and , however, terrorist offences are all offences that are covered by approximately ten UN agreements in the area of terror- ism, including the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Partly as a consequence of these different definitions, the regulations on particularly serious crime are complex, with referen- ces both to specified offences under Swedish law – such as terrorist offences, hijacking, or sabotage, and airport sabotage –and to offences under various international instruments, such as the abovementioned International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, and combinations of them. As is pointed out in the Inquiry’s terms of reference, the regula- tions on particularly serious crime mean that the legislation is lack- ing in clarity, and the Inquiry has considered several different ways to remove or simplify them. One alternative would be to make the offences of financing of terrorism and public provocation to commit a terrorist act, etc. only applicable in relation to a terrorist offence. There would be good reason to assert that this would mean a reasonable delimitation of criminal responsibility in the area of anti- terrorism that would also be compatible with the overall purpose of the international regulations. However, the solution would probably not be fully compatible with the more detailed commitments under the UN Convention and , as has been made clear in various ways in certain viewpoints in previous legislative matters. This is because several of the specified UN agree- ments are not restricted in their application to acts committed with the specific terrorist intent stated in the provisions on terrorist offences. The Inquiry has therefore made the assessment that the regula- tions on particularly serious crime cannot be left out of the legis- lation. However, they should be simplified as much as possible and should mainly refer to offences under Swedish law, including kid- napping or unlawful deprivation of (if the intention behind the offence is to force someone to take or refrain from taking a measure), arson, devastation endangering the public (gross offence), gross sabotage, hijacking, or sabotage, airport sabo- tage, and spreading poison or infection (gross offence). Such a solu- tion would make the criminalised area more predictable and clear, and the regulatory framework more user-friendly. The term ‘terrorist organisation’ should be defined As the proposed act will contain provisions on collaboration with a terrorist organisation, as well as financing, public provocation, recruit- ment and with regard to collaboration with such an organisa- tion, reasons of legal certainty and the requirement of predictability call for a clear definition in the legislation of what is meant by a ‘terrorist organisation’. It is proposed that the definition be linked to the carrying out of criminal acts, and that it cover associations of individuals who commit a terrorist offence or particularly serious crime as defined in the proposed act. jurisdiction for all offences under the proposed act The jurisdiction rules that currently apply for terrorist crime were introduced in different contexts and they differ between the regula- tions. Whereas terrorist offences fall within Swedish jurisdiction irrespective of where the act was committed and by whom (jurisdiction), this does not apply to offences under the Financing Act or the Recruitment Act. In these acts, separate provisions on jurisdiction have been introduced specifying restrictions, for exam- ple depending on who committed the offence. The Inquiry proposes that the jurisdiction rules be brought together in the general pro- visions on jurisdiction in Chapter 2 of the Swedish Criminal Code, and that jurisdiction be prescribed for all offences in the proposed act. Regulation of this kind is justified as there is a rela- tively broad international and regional consensus that offences under the proposed act should be punishable. The offences of financ- ing of terrorism and for the purpose of terrorism are based on international regulations within the framework of the UN, the FATF, . Regarding the offences of public provocation to commit a terrorist act, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism, the regulations are based on provisions contained in international instruments primarily within . It should be possible to use secret interception of electronic commu- nications, secret surveillance of electronic communications and secret camera surveillance in preliminary investigations of offences under the proposed act. The Act on measures to prevent certain particu- larly serious offences (2007:979) and the Act on collecting informa- tion about electronic communication in the law enforcement agencies’ intelligence activities (2012:278) should be applicable to terrorist offences and gross offences under the proposed act. The proposals reflect the existing regulation on the use of secret coercive measures in the event of a terrorist offence. It is proposed that the legislative amendments enter into force on 1 2021. Härigenom föreskrivs1 följande. 1 § Denna lag innehåller straffrättsliga bestämmelser om terrorist- brott och andra brott med anknytning till terrorism. Ord och uttryck i lagen 2 § Med särskilt allvarlig brottslighet avses i denna lag: 1.mordbrand, allmänfarlig ödeläggelse, grovt brott, grovt sabotage, kapning, sjö- eller luftfartssabotage, flygplatssabotage och spridande av gift eller smitta, grovt brott, 2.människorov och olaga frihetsberövande om avsikten med gär- ningen är att tvinga någon att vidta eller avstå från att vidta en åtgärd, 3.mord, människorov, grov skadegörelse, mordbrand eller annat allvarligt våldsamt angrepp som utförs mot en stats- eller regerings- chef, en utrikesminister eller annan internationellt skyddad person, som befinner sig utomlands, 4.uppsåtligt brott enligt 25 § första stycket 1 och 2 lagen (1984:3) om kärnteknisk verksamhet samt motsvarande grova brott enligt 25 a § samma lag, 5.uppsåtligt brott enligt 9 kap. 2 § 1 strålskyddslagen (2018:396) som avser tillståndsplikt enligt 6 kap. 1 § samma lag avseende sådan verksamhet som avses i 1 kap. 7 § 1 och 2 samma lag, samt 1Jfr och rådets direktiv (EU) 2017/541 av om bekäm- pande av terrorism, om ersättande av rådets rambeslut /475/RIF och om ändring av rådets beslut /671/RIF, i den ursprungliga lydelsen. 6.brott enligt annan lag som begås med en sådan avsikt som avses 3 § Med terroristorganisation avses i denna lag en sammanslutning av personer som begår terroristbrott eller särskilt allvarlig brotts- lighet eller gör sig skyldiga till försök, förberedelse, stämpling eller medverkan till sådan brottslighet. 4 § Den som begår eller försöker begå ett brott med avsikt att 1.injaga allvarlig fruktan hos en befolkning eller en del av en befolkning, 2.otillbörligen tvinga ett offentligt organ eller en mellanstatlig organisation att vidta eller att avstå från att vidta en åtgärd, eller 3.allvarligt destabilisera eller förstöra grundläggande politiska, konstitutionella, ekonomiska eller sociala strukturer i ett land eller i en mellanstatlig organisation, döms, om gärningen allvarligt kan skada ett land eller en mellan- statlig organisation, för terroristbrott till fängelse , lägst fyra och högst , eller på livstid. Är terroristbrottet mindre grovt döms till fängelse i lägst två och högst . Om ett högre lägsta straff för gärningen har föreskrivits i annan lag, gäller vad som där sägs i fråga om lägsta straff. 5 § Den som 1.för en terroristorganisation tar befattning med vapen, ammuni- tion, brandfarliga eller explosiva varor eller transportmedel, 2.upplåter lokal eller mark till en terroristorganisation, eller 3.lämnar annat liknande stöd till en terroristorganisation, döms, om gärningen är ägnad att främja, stärka eller understödja terroristorganisationen, för samröre med en terroristorganisation till fängelse i högst . Om brottet är grovt, döms till fängelse i lägst och och högst . Vid bedömningen av om brottet är grovt ska det särskilt beaktas om samröret har ingått som ett led i en verk- samhet som har bedrivits i större omfattning eller om det på annat sätt har varit av särskilt farlig art. I ringa fall ska det inte dömas till ansvar. 6 § Den som samlar in, tar emot eller tillhandahåller pengar eller annan egendom med avsikt att egendomen ska användas eller med vetskap om att den är avsedd att användas 1.för att begå eller på annat sätt medverka till särskilt allvarlig brottslighet eller brott som avses i någon av 4, 5 eller 7–10 §§, eller 2.av en terroristorganisation eller av en person som begår sådan brottslighet som avses i 3 §, döms för finansiering av terrorism till fängelse i högst . Om brottet är grovt, döms till fängelse i lägst ett och högst sex Vid bedömningen av om brottet är grovt ska det särskilt beaktas om finansieringen har avsett brottslighet som innefattar fara för flera människoliv eller för egendom av särskild betydelse, om den har ingått som ett led i en verksamhet som har bedrivits i större omfattning, om den har avsett betydande värde eller om den på annat sätt har varit av särskilt farlig art. I ringa fall ska det inte dömas till ansvar. 7 § Den som i ett meddelande till allmänheten uppmanar eller på annat sätt söker förleda till särskilt allvarlig brottslighet eller brott som avses i någon av 4–6 eller 8–10 §§, döms för offentlig uppmaning till terrorism till fängelse i högst . Om brottet är grovt, döms till fängelse i lägst ett och högst . Vid bedömningen av om brottet är grovt ska det särskilt beaktas om uppmaningen eller försöket har avsett brottslighet som inne- fattar fara för flera människoliv eller för egendom av särskild bety- delse, om gärningen har ingått som ett led i en verksamhet som har bedrivits i större omfattning eller om den på annat sätt har varit av särskilt farlig art. I ringa fall ska det inte dömas till ansvar. 8 § Den som söker förmå någon annan, i annat fall än som avses i 7 §, att begå eller på annat sätt medverka till särskilt allvarlig brotts- lighet eller brott som avses i någon av 4–6 §§, döms för rekrytering till terrorism till fängelse i högst . Om brottet är grovt, döms till fängelse i lägst ett och högst . Vid bedömningen av om brottet är grovt ska det särskilt beaktas om rekryteringen har avsett brottslighet som innefattar fara för flera människoliv eller för egendom av särskild betydelse, om den har in- gått som ett led i en verksamhet som har bedrivits i större omfatt- ning eller om den på annat sätt har varit av särskilt farlig art.