The police and prosecutors have long pointed out the difficulties in getting people to dare to testify against criminal networks. Even residents in vulnerable areas have expressed fear, and families who have dared to testify against the gangs have told how they were forced to flee.
Now, the government and the SD want to introduce the possibility of testifying anonymously, both during preliminary investigations and in court cases.
According to the legislative proposal, which will be presented on Friday, it will primarily apply to serious gang-related crimes. There must also be a "significant" risk that the witness or their relatives will be exposed to serious crime.
The crime that the witness is to testify about must also correspond to at least two years' imprisonment.
Hoping for more convictions
Gunnar Strömmer hopes that more people will be convicted and more serious crimes will be solved.
By getting more people to talk to the police, tell what they've seen and heard, more crimes will be able to be prosecuted and more perpetrators will be held accountable.
It is unclear how many will be able to testify anonymously. The government emphasizes that the system is intended to be used only in exceptional cases. They have also tasked the Crime Victim Authority with informing about the new system, so that it does not lead to "unrealistic expectations".
Our system is based on people testifying openly, says Strömmer.
The government believes that the proposal is legally secure. Among other things, the court that tries the case will not be allowed to know the identity of the anonymous witness, public prosecutors will monitor legal security issues, and the court's decision on anonymity can be appealed.
Heavy criticism
The proposal has, however, received harsh criticism earlier. In the spring, the Law Council said no, pointing to risks for legal security.
The government has since made several changes. Among other things, it has been added to the legislation that other measures to protect the witness must be insufficient or significantly more difficult to implement.
Strömmer emphasizes that the police and prosecutors have requested anonymous witnesses.
I don't see that there is a basis for assessing whether the benefits or drawbacks weigh heavier. But what we do know is that systems with anonymous witnesses exist in most other comparable countries, and we also know that in the situation Sweden is in, there is a very great need to try new measures.
The law is proposed to come into force already at the turn of the year.
Witnesses will be able to testify anonymously both during preliminary investigations and in court cases.
For a witness to be able to testify anonymously, it is required, among other things:
a significant risk that the witness or their relatives will be exposed to serious crime
that the penalty for the crime exceeds two years' imprisonment
that other measures are insufficient or significantly more difficult to implement
Both prosecutors and a suspect will be able to apply to hear a witness anonymously.
The application will be tried by the court.
The court will be able to decide on different protective measures to ensure anonymity, for example via a link and with a distorted voice.
The possibility of testifying anonymously exists in several countries, including Norway, Denmark, and Finland, where it is used very rarely.
