On October 24, 2024, the Swedish Supreme Court decided that a woman who was sentenced to prison should instead receive a conditional probation sentence for the best interests of her child.
Background
The woman was convicted of aggravated money laundering as part of a business activity, and for having helped her husband violate a ban on operating a business by receiving money on his behalf. (Decision at ¶¶ 1-2.) While the district court sentenced her to a conditional sentence, the appeals court sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment. (¶¶ 3-4.) The woman appealed her case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prison sentence should be reconsidered in light of her child’s best interests. (¶ 5.) She also argued that she committed the crime out of necessity.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeal to determine both the appropriate penalty for money laundering when part of a business activity, and how the best interests of a child should be considered during sentencing of a parent. (¶ 6.)
With regards to the money laundering penalty, the Supreme Court evaluated the circumstances of this case and reduced the sentence from 18 months to one year. (¶ 28.)
Under Swedish law, the interest of a convicted person’s child may be considered during sentencing (29 ch. 5 § 1 para 8, 30 ch. 4 § Criminal Code), and is a legally protected interest that must be considered (Decision at ¶ 19).
The court noted that article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is binding law in Sweden, provides that “[i]n all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” The court stated that the sentencing of a child’s parent meets the criteria for an action that concerns the child, and that the consequences to the child therefore must be evaluated. (¶¶ 21-22.) However, the best interest of the child need not always be decisive in the outcome of the sentencing. (¶ 24.)
The court noted that the punitory value of the crime in this case was one year, which under Swedish law presumes a prison sentence. The court then turned to consider the interests of the child. (¶ 28.)
The Supreme Court considered that the mother was the sole legal guardian of her underage son and that they were currently living in protected housing for domestic violence victims. Moreover, the child was suffering from PTSD and undergoing treatment for violent trauma, which treatment the court noted might be unsuccessful if the mother was sentenced to prison. Therefore, the court found it could be assumed that the child would be disproportionally affected by his mother’s incarceration.
Weighing the interests of the child against the severity of the crime, the Court found that there was room to sentence the mother to a conditional sentence instead of a prison sentence, and that the sentence should be coupled with monetary fines. (¶¶ 31-32.)
Elin Hofverberg, Law Library of Congress
November 21, 2024
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.