A high-profile court case in which a convicted rapist was awarded nearly a million kronor in compensation from the state while the crime victim struggled to receive damages has become a symbol of a broader conflict in Swedish legal policy. Criticism of the system has focused on whom the rule of law actually prioritizes – the perpetrator or the victim. Now, the government wants to fundamentally change the rules. Samnytt has spoken with the Sweden Democrats’ deputy party chairman and chair of the justice committee, Henrik Vinge, about the reforms that will shift the focus onto crime victims.

The issue of compensation to convicted criminals has in recent years become a recurring point of contention in Swedish legal politics. Particular attention was drawn to the case of the Syrian rapist Damir Al-Ali, who was convicted of, among other things, kidnapping and aggravated rape in Malmö but later awarded approximately 840,000 kronor in compensation from the state, as Samnytt has reported in several articles.

The background was that a subsequent legal review determined he was deprived of liberty for too long in relation to his final sentence. The Court of Appeal argued that it was difficult to verify the Syrian man’s exact age.

SEE ALSO: Chancellor of Justice: Damir Al-Ali received higher compensation because he raped

The decision sparked strong reactions since the man remained convicted of serious crimes while the state paid him compensation that exceeded the victims’ damages.

Now we ensure that crime victims get their money. But there are reasons to also look at whether the levels in some cases are sufficient, especially in violent crimes where the consequences may be life-long.

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Critics argued that the outcome undermined public confidence in the justice system and highlighted how legislation concerning compensation for deprivation of liberty and crime damages is designed.

SEE ALSO: EXCLUSIVE: How rapist Damir was deported to Syria

Against this background, the government is now presenting proposals to change the damages rules. Samnytt has spoken with Henrik Vinge (SD), lawyer, Member of Parliament from Stockholm and deputy chairman of the Sweden Democrats. Today he is considered one of the party’s most influential representatives in legal policy.

Can you describe the main points of the legislative proposals you are now implementing – and how do they concretely change the situation for crime victims?

– The clearest difference is that previously, if you were a crime victim and the perpetrator was ordered to pay you damages, you had to collect that debt the same way as any other debt. And if the perpetrator didn’t pay, or fled the country, or had no money, you got nothing. He continues:

– Now we are completely changing those rules. What will happen is that the state steps in and pays the damages to the victim, and then the state collects the money from the perpetrator instead. That’s the big difference.

Most people already believe that damages mean you receive that money?

– I think many people believe that it’s already been like that, but that’s not the case. Previously, the perpetrator got a debt just as if someone had taken out a mobile subscription or something else. And it was up to the crime victim to collect it, which is not always so simple – especially if you’re dealing with a dangerous person. Vinge continues:

– Now the crime victim will always get paid. And the state is very good at collecting debts, with the Tax Agency and the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) and the persistence they have. This will lead to perpetrators actually having to pay more often.

The Damir Al-Ali Case Was Decisive

You highlight the 840,000 kronor case as a clear example of shortcomings in the previous system. What made this case so decisive for the need for reform?

– What made the case so startling was that guilt was not in doubt. He was still convicted of a very serious crime. At the same time, he received a large sum from the state, while the victim found it much harder to obtain their damages, Vinge explains.

For a long time, the focus has largely been on the perpetrator’s rights and integrity. Now we reverse the perspective and put the crime victim at the center. That the person who has been subjected to crime actually receives their compensation is a central part in this shift.

Henrik Vinge (SD)

A central part of the criticism was that the state’s compensation could not be seized to cover the perpetrator’s debt to the victim.

– He got the entire amount paid out, while the victim practically received nothing. That is an outcome that many found offensive and which clearly demonstrated the need for change.

SEE ALSO: Damir Receives Nearly a Million in Damages After Kidnapping Rapes – Sentence Was TOO Harsh

According to Vinge, the problem lay in the regulations, rather than the authorities who made the decisions.

If the outcome is like this, as in the 840,000 kronor case, is it the legislation or the Chancellor of Justice’s decisions that have failed?

– The Chancellor of Justice, in these cases, has followed the existing rules. The problem has been that the legal framework was wrongly designed, which led to offensive outcomes. That’s why the legislation needs to change. He continues:

– At the same time, it’s necessary to follow how the new rules are applied in practice, and if unfair results still arise it may be necessary to review them again.

The new rules mean, among other things, that state compensation in some cases can be reduced or withheld entirely if it is deemed unreasonable to pay large sums to people convicted of serious crimes.

– It is reasonable that those wrongly convicted receive compensation. But when guilt is established and it is a matter of technical circumstances, as in this case, there should be a possibility to adjust the compensation.

Part of a Larger Policy Realignment

Henrik Vinge describes the reform as part of a more comprehensive shift in the approach to criminal policy.

– For a long time, the focus has largely been on the rights and integrity of the perpetrator. Now we reverse the perspective and put the crime victim at the center. Making sure that those who have been subjected to crime actually receive their compensation is centrally important to this change, he says.

At the same time, he says the work does not end with the payment system itself. The next step, according to him, is to look at the size of damages in serious crimes.

– Now we ensure that crime victims get their money. But there is reason to also look at whether the levels are sufficient in certain cases, especially in cases of serious violent crime where the consequences may be life-long.

SEE ALSO: Tidö parties make compensation for crime victims easier

In parallel, the government is working on other measures aimed at strengthening protection for victims of crime, including longer incarceration for serious offenders and the possibility of limiting their freedom of movement in certain areas after their sentence has been served.

– This may concern criminal gangs or violence in close relationships. Those who have subjected others to serious crime should not be able to return and continue to pose a threat to their victims. In such cases, there need to be clear ways of keeping a distance even after the sentence has been served, he tells Samnytt.

The first example is when a suspect, in one way or another, has contrived to remain in custody and therefore sat there longer. This could be, for example, because they obstructed the investigation or put themselves in situations leading to custody even though no crime could be proven in the end. Someone who moves in criminal circles and poses in pictures with automatic weapons or lies about having been involved in a murder on social media, but turns out to be innocent of any crime (the picture may have been taken at a legal shooting range abroad, for instance), has previously been able to receive large sums in compensation from the state. This is because they were incarcerated without guilt for a crime. These will now, as a general rule, not receive a penny. If you have deliberately and knowingly contrived to stay in custody, you only have yourself to blame – the state should not compensate that.

Henrik Vinge (SD) on X

For Vinge, these changes are ultimately about restoring trust in the legal system.

– When people see that crime victims receive redress and the system is perceived as fair, trust in the rule of law increases. This is an important starting point for the whole shift we are now carrying out.

The reforms are expected to come into force from September 1 this year. How the reforms will affect the justice system in practice remains to be seen.

Only when the new rules have been applied to concrete cases will it be possible to determine whether the policy shift actually changes the balance between perpetrator and victim, an issue that has long been debated.