I barnets och allmänhetens intresse - om möjligheten för åklagare att under förundersökning förhöra barn som vittne till våld mellan föräldrar

Sammanfattning: The fact that violence in intimate relationships most often takes place in someone’s home, makes it difficult to prosecute the perpetrator in lack of witnesses. In one third of the cases regarding violence against women in intimate relationships, children are witnesses. Despite this, children are interrogated only in 18 % of these cases. The preliminary investigation is often closed because of the lack of sufficient evidence of the crimes. Existing law regarding the possibility during the preliminary investigation to interrogate a child, who has witnessed violence between the parents, is uncertain. On the one hand, there is the opinion that the legal guardians have to give their consent to interrogating the child. On the other hand, there is the opinion that the rules about legal guardians in FB are not applicable in the situation, and because of this the parents do not have the right to decide in the matter. If consent from the parents is needed, the interrogation will never happen. The suspected parent does not consent to the interrogation of the child, because of their own interest in the investigation. Prosecutors seem to have the opinion that children should not be interrogated in regard of the child’s interest. They imply that the interrogation puts the child in a conflict of loyalty, where it has to “choose” between the parents. Despite this, there are those who are of the opinion that in many cases, the child has a need to talk about the crime, and that it is in the child’s interest that it is noticed and interrogated. The purpose with the essay is therefore to investigate the prosecutor’s possibilities to interrogate a child in given situations, but also to critically inspect if existing law is satisfying. In cases where the child is plaintiff, and one parent is suspected of crime against the child, the right to decide in the question of interrogation is moved to a special predecessor for the child. As a result of this, the legal guardians of the child cannot decide if the child will be interrogated. Children who have witnessed violence in intimate relationships are by law victims of crime in the same way that children that are directly exposed to violence. Preparatory work notices the child that is witness to violence between the parents, and says that this child in many cases suffers the same harm that the child that is directly exposed to violence. Despite this, difference is done between these categories of children. The child that is witness to violence is not by law plaintiff, and can therefore not be assigned a special predecessor. Because of the lack of writing about children witnessing violence in intimate relationships, the amount of material is very brief. Focus in preparatory work as well as in literature is the child as plaintiff. Despite that the material foremost regards the child as plaintiff, interesting discussions are held about children in investigations where the parent has their own interest. A big part of the essay therefore has its foundation in this material. I come to the conclusion that existing law demands consent from legal guardians in order to interrogating children who have witnessed violence between their parents. Preparatory work and most opinions in literature indicate this. However, I am of the opinion that this is unreasonable, and that the parents right to decide in the matter should be moved to someone else. My proposals are either to change the child’s legal status to plaintiff, and thereby enable a special predecessor to decide in the matter, or to move the right to decide to the leader of the preliminary investigation. In this way, anyone with interest in the investigation cannot dispose of the right to decide whether an interrogation should be held. This seems to me more reasonable, because a suspect can never dispose of the right to decide whether for example a raid should be done during the investigation. By enabling interrogation with the child, that never would be held if the legal guardians were the ones to decide, it provides base for solving a crime that otherwise is very hard to prove. I am of the opinion that even if the legal guardians are not in dispose of deciding in the matter, it does not mean that the child always should be interrogated. Regards are to be taken to the child’s interest, and should be put into relation to the multitudes interest of getting crimes solved. I believe that these two interests in many cases coincide. I also believe that it often follows more positive consequences, and therefore it is in the best interest of the child, that it is interrogated. When a child has witnessed violence in intimate relationships, it does not live under circumstances that are to the child’s interest. To improve the child’s situation the parent must be prosecuted. By enabling interrogation, it is possible to help a child that by law is a victim of crime, and therefore is in need of support.