State protection of individuals under threat – deficiencies in scope and effectiveness

Each year, a great number of people in Sweden are subjected to threats, violence and harassment. This leads to significant costs, both for the victim and for society at large. The Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Tax Agency have important roles in state efforts to protect individuals under threat. The Swedish Police Authority has crime victim and witness protection units – BOPS – in which they assess the threat to a person, and take protective measures when necessary. The Swedish Tax Agency decides on protected personal data, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority decides on non-contact orders.

The Swedish National Audit Office (NAO) has examined whether the state effectively protects individuals under threat. The protective measures should prevent people from being subjected to threats, violence, or harassment. If unsuccessful, there is a risk for unnecessary suffering for the individuals under threat, and ultimately for undermining confidence in the judicial system and the state. The Swedish NAO’s overall conclusion is that the state is not working effectively enough to protect individuals under threat, partly because the state cannot ensure that the individuals in need of protection are granted it, and partly because the protection is not always effective.

The audit shows that deficient knowledge among employees who register police reports leads to many cases being referred to BOPS, often incorrectly. The proportion of granted non-contact orders varies considerably across Sweden, indicating that accuracy in inflow processing varies in different parts of Sweden, and that there are unjustified disparities in how prosecutors decide on non-contact orders. Current regulation also means that prosecutors do not issue non-contact orders where they could have the best effect. The substantial inflow of cases to BOPS forces them to prioritise between cases, despite there being a need for protection. Meanwhile, BOPS cannot currently follow up in which cases they have taken protective measures.

The Swedish NAO assesses that the protection granted by the authorities does not effectively prevent individuals from being subjected to threats, violence or harassment. This is partly because breaches of non-contact orders too rarely have consequences for the threat actor, and that government agencies incorrectly divulge individuals’ protected personal data as a result of poor knowledge. The audit shows that most breaches of non-contact orders do not lead to prosecution, and that there are too few appointed police officers who monitor that non-contact orders have the desired effect. Additionally, the technical equipment for combining non-contact orders with ankle tags does not currently work as intended. The Swedish Tax Agency’s postal service for people with protected personal data is both resource-intensive and poses security risks. In order to address these risks, the service should be regulated by law.

The protective measures that the state can offer to subjected individuals involve tremendous restrictions for the protected person. The Swedish NAO therefore assesses that the state needs to prioritise preventive measures targeting perpetrators to a greater extent, in addition to the protective measures being taken.