The Sweden Democrats, together with the governing coalition parties, want to force Sweden’s prosecutors to request deportation for foreign citizens who are prosecuted for crimes. The proposal is being met with protest from the prosecution side.
– In my opinion, it is a strange discussion, says Lennart Guné at the Prosecutor’s Office Development Center to Samnytt.
The four parties in the so-called Tidö Agreement have agreed that more criminal immigrants should be deported. For almost exactly two years now, work has therefore been underway on new legislation aimed at ensuring that foreign citizens who commit crimes are more frequently sent home.
A part of this proposal involves stripping the country’s prosecutors of the right to decide themselves when it is justified to request deportation. The reason is that the governing parties feel that the prosecutors are not handling this task properly.
– It is absolutely obvious, says Ludvig Aspling, the Sweden Democrats’ spokesperson on migration policy, to Samnytt on Monday.
READ ALSO: SD and the government to force prosecutors to deport criminal immigrants
“Not something a rule-of-law country can mess around with”
But the idea that prosecutors should be forced to request deportation, even in cases where “it may seem obvious that the request will not be granted”, is being met with protests—especially from the Prosecutor’s Office.
Lennart Guné is Chief Public Prosecutor and head of the Prosecutor’s Office Development Center:
– First, let me be clear about what is not the problem: It is not a problem for the Prosecutor’s Office if the thresholds for being deported due to crime are lowered. We have no opinions on that. That’s entirely a political matter, he tells Samnytt.
– Second: We have no opinions whatsoever about prosecutors being required to seek deportation when we judge there are legal grounds for deportation. That is also not a problem.
– What we are concerned about is that the new legislation obliges prosecutors to request deportation even in a large number of cases where there are no legal grounds for deportation based on the crimes we are prosecuting for.
Why is that a problem?
– Why is that a problem? Well, imagine yourself being prosecuted for a crime for which there is no basis, or being subjected to anything in a court where the claimant does not even believe in it themselves. It’s simply not something a rule-of-law country can just mess around with.
– Normally, we are not allowed to prosecute crimes if we cannot anticipate a conviction. That is obvious in a rule-of-law country. This is required from a prosecutor or equivalent. It is exactly the same when it comes to special claims related to crimes, such as deportation, confiscation, business bans, advisory bans, you name it.
– We are obliged to bring such claims to court and have them examined, when we assess that there are legal grounds for it.
“A strange piece of legislation”
The background for the Tidö Agreement parties’ wish to change the law consists of several high-profile cases where criminal foreigners were allowed to stay in Sweden, despite having been convicted of serious crimes—simply because the responsible prosecutor forgot, ignored, or for other reasons did not request deportation.
Because of this, the Sweden Democrats express a lack of confidence in the entire Prosecutor’s Office. The party wants to remove prosecutors’ power to decide when they should and should not seek deportation.
Lennart Guné does not recognize himself at all in such harsh criticism.
– If anything, we as prosecutors are typically much more active with deportation issues than we are with other matters, he claims.
Guné points out that prosecutors get “no” on their deportation requests more often than for other types of claims. As many as one in four such requests are denied by the court.
– That indicates that we are regularly pushing the issue. Normally, with crimes and sentences and such, we may get turned down only once in ten times, he says, adding:
– In my view, it is a strange discussion, and in that way a strange piece of legislation, which assumes that we would be reluctant to pursue these matters.
At the same time, the Chief Prosecutor regrets that his colleagues sometimes fail to include a deportation request.
– That there are occasional cases that have been presented, where it has patently been missed, is of course unfortunate. There’s no denying that, he says.
“An Increase in Pressure on the System”
Not everyone at the Prosecutor’s Office sees the issue the same way. Ola Sjöstrand is Chief Prosecutor and head of the National Unit Against International and Organized Crime. He has been the government’s investigator, authoring the report that forms the basis of the new law.
– I received a mandate to strengthen the ability to carry out deportations. So we have lowered the thresholds for that, and had to introduce a mandatory requirement for prosecutors to request it, says Ola Sjöstrand to Samnytt.
– We then discussed back and forth about where this should best be handled, and this was the outcome.
Sjöstrand believes the new law will have noticeable effects on the entire justice system.
– There will be an increase in pressure in the system now and in criminal proceedings. There will be more requests and more assessments. There will be more investigations into personal circumstances and other matters, he says.
– And of course, at least initially, there will be an increased cost for the Prosecutor’s Office and the courts.
The Chief Prosecutor emphasizes that his proposal is designed based on the requirements he received from the government. He has no personal views on them.
– I have no personal reflections on this. I submitted my report to the government in May last year, and they took over from there, says Ola Sjöstrand.
Handle Deportation Claims Separately
Both Lennart Guné and Ola Sjöstrand are also considering a different solution: To completely remove the deportation aspect from criminal trials and let it be handled in a separate legal process.
Not least in view of the fact that deportation is no longer considered when determining the sentence, and courts in the future will not need to consider issues of inadmissibility of enforcement either.
– That means there are every reason to completely separate the deportation issue from the criminal trial, and handle it afterward by the Migration Agency or a migration court, says Guné.
Sjöstrand mentions such a solution in his report as well, even if it has not been the focus of the investigation.
– We thought that when the sentence from the court is known, and if the person is a foreign national, then it could be sent to the Migration Agency, which makes the entire assessment outside the criminal process. Then there would be no more requests, but it would be handled automatically if the requirements for deportation are met, he says.
Is there not a transparency problem in transferring this to the Migration Agency, as the principle of public access and public scrutiny does not apply there?
– As I said: That is not something we have looked at in detail. It wasn’t part of the mandate, so it is just a thought, says Ola Sjöstrand.
???? Many read Samnytt but few support
Support the newspaper, so we can continue scrutinizing the establishment and telling what other media omit.
Swish: Donate any amount to 123 083 3350