In an evaluation, the Public Prosecution Service has identified three cases in which anonymous witnesses were granted in court from when the law came into force in January last year until April 1, 2026. Since then, another case has come to light, in which a person is to testify anonymously in a trial in Umeå over a long series of serious crimes linked to the online sect 764.
Whether there are more or fewer than expected is difficult to say, according to Chief Prosecutor Magnus Johansson, who made the first evaluation of the law.
It was difficult to assess in advance, but the starting point is that this is an exceptional rule.
Testified during investigation
In two of the cases, the people who testified under pseudonyms have only done so during the preliminary investigation and have not been heard during a possible main hearing. The effect of the anonymous testimonies is unknown.
In the third case, a former Hells Angels member was heard during an investigation into a murder in Lidköping in 2022. He was also supposed to testify during the trial, but his testimony was then withdrawn by the prosecutor without explanation. The case ended in an acquittal.
The ongoing case in Umeå will therefore be the first in which an anonymous witness is heard during a main hearing.
Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer is satisfied with the outcome so far.
I think it shows that the tool has been used. It confirms what we also assumed when we presented the legislation: that this may primarily be used during the preliminary investigation to obtain other evidence, which can then be used in a main hearing.
Effect in individual cases
According to Strömmer, the effectiveness of anonymous witnesses should not be primarily evaluated by how often it is used, but rather the impact it has in the individual cases that become relevant.
Judging from this report, the prosecution has judged this to be an effective tool in a number of cases.
Although these are isolated cases, he believes that this, together with other tools, can help to “break the culture of silence” and increase witness protection, which was the government’s aim.
This does not replace other important tools for protecting victims or witnesses. However, we wanted to give the judiciary the opportunity to also use anonymity as protection in the preliminary investigation or main hearing itself, when there is a need.
A prosecutor, a suspect or a defendant may apply to the district court for a witness to be heard anonymously during a criminal investigation or trial.
The application may be approved by the court if there is a “significant risk” that the witness or the person’s relatives will otherwise be exposed to serious crime.
The penalty for the crime the witness is to be questioned about must correspond to at least two years’ imprisonment.
The reason for anonymity must “outweigh” the difficulties it poses for a suspect or defendant to defend themselves.
Other measures to protect the witness shall furthermore be considered insufficient or significantly more difficult to implement, and it shall otherwise be appropriate to hear the witness anonymously.
The judges who rule in the case should not be aware of the identity of the anonymous witness, a public representative should be appointed to monitor legal issues in the case, and the court’s decision should be subject to appeal.
Source: Parliament
