Both of the judges, one Chief Judge in a District Court and one former District Court judge now working in a Court of Appeal, reported a shift towards conducting urgent Court hearings only or primarily. The urgent hearings entailed inter alia cases where legal deadlines apply, for example because the suspect is detained awaiting trial. Other hearings are cancelled or postponed. Both the prosecution and the defense are often offered to participate via videolink and this is usually accepted by the parties. One of the judges (Chief Judge in the District Court) reported that inside the Court room, social distancing rules are applied so that individuals in the audience are sitting only on every other chair. Also, lay judges over 70 years old are not taking part in the proceedings. Both of the judges reported increased remote working, online meetings and social distancing rules being applied among staff.
As outlined in Fig. 1 below, most of the practitioners perceived of the measures undertaken as sufficient, with a mean rating of 7.70 (out of 10). Among the two defense counsels, the ratings varied the most, with the lowest rating being 4 and the highest rating being 9.
When asked to provide explanations of their ratings, one of the police officers, who had given a rating of 8, reported that the number of staff on sick leave was actually lower during the pandemic than before. Hence, this constitutes a difference compared to the reports in Swedish media according to which many police officers belonging to another geographical area (Gothenburg) had contracted the virus and were unable to work. The other police officer explained his/her rating of sufficiency (also 8) differently, namely that there is a shortage of sanitizers for cleaning surfaces etc.
Similarly, both of the forensic pathologists stated the measures undertaken were reasonable given what is known about the infection risk, while one of them (rating 7) expressed difficulty with ensuring that locks (sluices) are functioning appropriately to separate clean and soiled areas in the ward.
Also the prosecutors believed that the measures undertaken were sufficient overall but one of them commented that it is difficult to maintain social distancing when appearing in person in Court.
The defense counsel with the highest rating (9) thought that the infection risk was sufficiently reduced through increased remote working and the social distancing applied in the office. However, the other defense counsel, who works in another office and another geographical area, with the lowest rating (4) expressed that only a few measures had been undertaken apart from social distancing as: "we cannot stop seeing clients in person".
Both of the judges considered the undertaken measures sufficient and expressed that they had abided by the relevant recommendations from the authorities.
Across all categories of practitioners increased remote working as well as online methods for meetings, briefings, presentation of cases/reports or Court participation were reported, although with some individual variation (primarily among the defense counsels), see Fig. 2 below. Hence, these results are similar to those found in the US and Canada, although it seems online methods are used to different extent in the Courts in these respective countries. There were also many examples of cancelled or postponed events (Court hearings, conferences, supplementary training etc.). One of the prosecutors had decided for him/herself to not work from home and one defense counsel could not work from home because of the necessity to see clients in person in his/her work setting. The Chief Judge from the District Court also reported that he/she faced some challenges with keeping the staff motivated and to maintain group cohesion.
Among the police, one of the officers with managerial responsibilities reported an initial increase in his/her work load due to the need to plan and establish new routines. For the other police officer, the work load had remained more or less the same.
The pathologists reported that the case flow was slower due to the new autopsy routines and also that there was less administration, which is similar to the findings reported from Italy. One of the pathologists reported that he/she now spent more time explaining COVID-19 related issues/difficulties to the police.
The prosecutor who had been working from home experienced that he/she gets the same job done in fewer hours and that the digital meetings save time as one does not have to move physically from and within the work place. However, the prosecutor who did not remote work reported that the work load had been constant before and after the pandemic.
The defense counsels both reported a more or less constant work load. One of them explained that, despite being in the middle of a pandemic, he/she was still working with large cases in the District Court. The other defense counsel explained that for cases in which the suspects have been deprived of their liberty the work load was the same, while it was reduced for other cases due to cancelled Court hearings.
Similar to the police, the judge with managerial responsibilities (Chief Judge, District Court) reported an initial increase in work load due to the necessity to establish new routines. However, this went back to normal again as hearings were cancelled. The other judge reported that the total work load had been constant although there had been a shift in the sense that he/she works more with presentation of cases/reports and less with hearings. Notably, these developments are expected and also consistent with what has been reported from Canadian and American Courts where staff e.g. have to learn new technology and adjust to their new work situations.
As illustrated in Fig. 3 below the overall perceived impact of COVID-19 on work load was fairly low, although with some variation across categories of practitioners as well as individual practitioners.
The police reported that the number of burglaries is reduced significantly since the outbreak of the virus. Hence, staff assigned to investigate burglaries can instead support investigations regarding e.g. vehicles. However, in relation to gross crimes, the police reported that the numbers from May 2020 are not any different than those from 2019. One of the police officers reported that more serial crimes were investigated, following a somewhat reduced work load.
None of the pathologists, prosecutors or defense counsels reported any changes in the type of crime suspicions, evidence etc. that they were working with. Neither the judges reported such differences but both of them explained that with the pandemic more preparatory was conducted instead of hearings. Also, the judges reported that more decisions are made in cases which can be decided on the basis of documents alone.
As outlined in Fig. 4, the police and the judges reported the largest impacts on work character.
The responses provided by the practitioners can also be compared to the official statistics from The Swedish Police Authority concerning the incidence of reported crimes nationwide. These statistics entail comparisons between crimes reported in March-April 2019 and in March-April 2020. The largest decrease was in relation to crimes of theft (-18.20%) while the largest increase was in relation to narcotic drug offences (+13.10%). Violent crimes against individuals had decreased (-8.40%).
Although decreases and increases in reported crimes do not necessarily mean that the actual incidence of crimes has changed, these statistics, as well as what is reported by Swedish practitioners seem to differ from what is reported so far from Italy, the US and Canada. In these countries there are not (yet) any reports of decreases in burglaries but instead increases have been noted in relation to gross crimes including gun violence and assault. It is unknown whether these noted differences are real and constant over time, or instead products of the limited information currently available.
One of the police officers explained that since their work is conducted on the basis of best practice and guidelines, the work quality has not been impacted by COVID-19. The other police officer thought this question was difficult to answer but expressed a concern that the processing times at the National Forensic Centre (NFC) are longer than before.
One of the pathologists stated that "there is a risk of missing important information when full autopsies are replaced by external examinations." He/she added that crime scene investigations may be complicated due to the usage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), since it results in reduced hearing, smell and sight. However, the other pathologist believed that the final products were better since more time could be spent on each case.
One of the prosecutors believed that digital meetings cannot fully replace ordinary real-life meetings when it comes to exchange of information and collaboration. The chances to interact and consult with colleagues more informally are reduced, which to a certain extent can impact on the work quality. The other prosecutor saw no differences in work quality.
One of the defense counsels noted that the quality of phone meetings was sometimes impeded due to technical issues. Also, this defense counsel noted that when the Courts conduct witness interviews via phone, this may have an impact on the judges' assessments on witness credibility and reliability. The view of this defense counsel is in line with current day research suggesting that the format in which witnesses' as well as plaintiffs' testimonies are presented significantly influences perceptions of them and their testimonies. For example, live testimonies are often considered more detailed and reliable than those presented via video or audio recordings. It is unknown what the effect will be of the more general shift towards using technology rather than in Court testimonies following the pandemic. The other defense counsel believed the work quality was more or less constant.
One of the judges noted that the balance between incoming and outgoing cases has been impacted since many hearings have been cancelled. This has resulted in that the processing times are longer. The other judge stated that since the Court is prioritizing some cases above others the balances and processing times are worse for some types of cases but better for other types of cases. However, he/she did not think there were any other impacts on quality. These findings are similar to the backlogs reported in American and Canadian courts.
As illustrated in Fig. 5, pathologists reported the largest impact on work quality. However, as noted in their responses above, one of them perceived of this impact as negative and the other one as positive.
One of the police officers reported practically no fear of contracting or spread the virus since he/she works with the same people every day and due to the preventive measures undertaken in their work place. The other police officer was mostly concerned about travelling to work because of an increase in the number of people using public transport. He/she stated that: "I know I take responsibility and stay at home even at the slightest sign of being ill, but I am not sure everyone else is doing the same."
One of the pathologists explained that "autopsy work entails an obvious risk to be exposed to aerosols from body fluids". He/she explained that, in fact, a number of his/her colleagues have contracted COVID-19, although it is always difficult to know exactly when, where and how they contracted it. The other pathologists did not fear contracting the virus, since he/she believed the exposure to COVID-19 is small and under controlled circumstances.
One of the prosecutors stated that since the virus can be transmitted also by non-symptomatic individuals "the risk is everywhere and not larger in relation to the work place than other places, such as the grocery store." The other prosecutor did not feel particularly concerned to contract or spread the disease.
One of the defense counsels stated that he/she was exposed to many different individuals, for instance in small Court rooms, visits at detention centers and other contacts with clients. He/she added that a colleague had to travel by plane on repeated occasions within Sweden in order to attend a Court hearing. The other defense counsel perceived of the risk as pretty low since he/she avoids the work place and it has been empty for a long time period.
In the assessment of one of the judges, the largest risk is when travelling by train to the Court which he/she does practically every day, particularly since the trains are becoming more and more crowded, following an initial period when most people were working from home. The other judge reported that: "Even though we abide by social distancing, a day at work entails quite a few meetings, but I am rarely very worried."
As outlined in Fig. 6, the judges and the defense counsels reported higher perceived risks of contracting or spreading COVID-19 than the police, pathologists and prosecutors, although this should be read in conjunction with the explanations above.
While there is large individual variation in the pathologists' ratings (0,7), it can be questioned how a pathologist who directly interacts with a potentially or known COVID-19 positive body perceives of the risk as lower than a judge sitting in a Court room or a defense counsel interacting with his/her client. The more specific reasons for this are unknown but one possibility is that pathologists have access to and experience in using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and are also expected to use it, unlike judges and defense counsels who are left to social distancing measures which may appear more uncertain in effect and/or more difficult to apply in practice.
One of the police officers indicated some positive impacts of COVID-19 such as improving the preparedness to organize quick operative online meetings. He/she stated that it is likely they will continue working with such meetings also after the pandemic is over. Furthermore, the police stated that there are some remaining questions e.g. how to deal with items and bodies in safe ways. Not having any specific answers to these questions yet has been a cause of concern among some of the staff members.
One of the pathologists explained that they have been asked to answer some more general questions like whether elderly homes have undertaken adequate preventive measures in relation to COVID-19. According to this pathologist, such questions are impossible for them to answer.
One of the prosecutors added that sometimes witnesses do not want to come to Court due to the infection risk, which is far from ideal.
One of the defense counsels stated the inflow of cases to the firm was poor initially but that it is back to normal now.
One of the judges explained that some of the co-workers have been quite worried, and as their boss he/she has tried to deal with it appropriately. The worries have been general, in relation to the society, but also following new routines and instructions. Some co-workers have had issues working from home, as they feel stressed, ineffective or isolated. The other judge explained that in his/her opinion all the measures undertaken should be evaluated as to whether they are really necessary.