Grounds for Detention, Restrictions, and Time in Custody – Risk of Flight, Risk of Collusion, and Risk of Recidivism

Brief Answer: Detention typically requires that the individual is reasonably suspected of a crime with a penalty scale that includes at least one year of imprisonment and that there is a concrete risk of flight, obstruction of the investigation (risk of collusion), or continued criminal activity (risk of recidivism). Additionally, the court must assess that the reasons for detention outweigh the intrusion. Restrictions require a special assessment and, in the case of detention, can only be based on the risk of evidence being destroyed or the investigation otherwise being obstructed.

For adults, the main rule is a maximum of nine months of continuous detention in Sweden until indictment. For those who had not reached the age of 18 when the detention decision was executed, the corresponding limit is three months. Both limits can be exceeded if the court finds exceptional reasons. These are limits before indictment, not a total time limit for the entire period in detention.

This guide addresses questions about grounds for detention, proportionality, restrictions, and detention time. For the path from arrest to court decision, the four-day deadline, indictment deadline, and re-detention, read detention hearing and detention request. Also see public defender – rights, cost, and request and the overview suspected of a crime – your rights.

Basic Requirements for Detention

The general rule is found in Chapter 24, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. The assessment consists of several steps. Fulfilling one step does not replace the others.

Step in Assessment	Main Rule	Question for the Court
Degree of Suspicion	Reasonably suspected.	Are there sufficiently concrete circumstances that, with the higher degree of suspicion, link the person to the act?
Penalty Scale of the Crime	The crime must be prescribed imprisonment for one year or more.	Does the penalty scale include at least one year of imprisonment? It does not need to be the minimum penalty.
Specific Grounds for Detention	Risk of flight, risk of collusion, or risk of recidivism.	What future risk exists, and what individual circumstances demonstrate it?
Proportionality	The reasons for the measure must outweigh the intrusion or inconvenience.	Is detention necessary and reasonable right now, or is a less intrusive measure sufficient?
Expected Sanction	If it can be assumed that the sanction will only be a fine, detention cannot occur.	Is there an absolute obstacle due to the expected sanction?

Degrees of suspicion are legal thresholds, not percentages. "Reasonably suspected" is higher than "suspected on reasonable grounds" but lower than the burden of proof for a conviction. In so-called investigative detention, a person can exceptionally be detained already on reasonable suspicion if other requirements are met and it is of particular importance to keep the person in custody pending further investigation. This assessment must be followed by a new hearing within a week.

Presumption Rule for High Minimum Penalty

If the crime is not prescribed a lesser penalty than imprisonment for one year and six months, Chapter 24, Section 1, second paragraph states that detention shall occur unless it is obvious that grounds for detention are lacking. This rule is often described as a presumption of detention.

It is not an automatic deprivation of liberty solely due to the crime classification. The court must still assess that the degree of suspicion is met, whether it is obvious that grounds for detention are lacking, proportionality, and the prohibition against detention when only fines can be assumed to follow.

Special Exception Rules

The Code of Judicial Procedure also contains rules that may allow detention regardless of the crime's penalty scale, including when a person reasonably suspected is unknown and refuses to provide reliable identity information or lacks residence in Sweden and risks leaving the country to evade prosecution or punishment. These exceptions have their own criteria and should not be confused with the three common grounds for detention.

Risk of Flight – Risk of Evading Prosecution or Punishment

Risk of flight according to Chapter 24, Section 1, first paragraph 1 means the risk that the suspect absconds or otherwise evades prosecution or punishment. The assessment should be forward-looking and tied to the individual person.

Circumstances That May Be Relevant

• concrete attempts to leave the country, evade authorities, or use a false identity,
• statements or practical preparations indicating an intention to abscond,
• lack of stable housing or other clear ties, combined with other risk factors,
• access to housing, funds, or networks abroad,
• previous documented evasion from legal proceedings or enforcement, and
• the severity of the expected penalty, if it can be assumed to influence the inclination to abscond.

A single factor may not suffice. Foreign citizenship, travel, or family abroad does not automatically indicate a flight risk. Similarly, having a residence or employment in Sweden does not exclude the risk if there are strong concrete indications to the contrary.

Questions assessing flight risk

• What is the person actually alleged to be able or willing to do?
• What event or information indicates the risk, beyond the seriousness of the crime?
• How strong and current is the connection to housing, family, work, or studies?
• Can travel bans, reporting obligations, or other conditions manage the risk?

Risk of Collusion – risk of evidence being removed or investigation hindered

The risk of collusion is the common term for the risk described in Chapter 24, Section 1, first paragraph 2: that the suspect, by removing evidence or otherwise, hinders the investigation of the matter. It is also the only type of risk that can justify restrictions on a detainee's contacts with the outside world.

What may indicate a risk of collusion?

• important interviews with co-suspects, plaintiffs, or witnesses remain,
• digital accounts, items, or documents have not yet been secured,
• concrete attempts to delete, hide, or alter evidence,
• attempts to coordinate stories or influence persons to be interviewed,
• a role in an organization or relationship that provides an actual opportunity to influence the investigation, and
• the suspect knows which investigative measures remain and has the opportunity to disrupt them.

The prosecutor should be able to describe which parts of the investigation are worth protecting and how the suspect can influence them. A general reference to the investigation being "at a sensitive stage" says less than a concrete account of remaining measures.

A risk that can change quickly

The risk of collusion may decrease when evidence has been secured and key interviews conducted. Therefore, the court needs to ask at each new review what remains and why the suspect's freedom still poses a risk. If the prosecutor adds new acts or investigative leads, the risk profile may simultaneously change in the opposite direction.

Risk of Recidivism – risk of continued criminal activity

The risk of recidivism according to Chapter 24, Section 1, first paragraph 3 is the risk that the suspect continues their criminal activity. The purpose is to prevent concrete continued criminality during the process, not to preemptively punish someone for a history or general lifestyle.

Circumstances that may be significant

• a close temporal and factual connection between several suspected acts,
• criminal activity alleged to be ongoing, organized, or systematic,
• previous similar criminal activity, especially if recidivism occurred shortly after previous interventions,
• access to the tools, contacts, or locations required for the alleged criminal activity,
• violations of previous conditions or less intrusive coercive measures, and
• concrete plans or threats of new acts.

Previous convictions can be part of the overall assessment but do not alone demonstrate that new criminal activity will occur. The risk needs to be linked to continued criminal activity and be sufficiently current to justify detention.

Questions assessing the risk of recidivism

• What type of continued criminal activity is alleged to be likely?
• What new or ongoing circumstances indicate the risk?
• Have conditions changed through seizures, restraining orders, treatment, housing, or other measures?
• Can surveillance, travel bans, or reporting obligations sufficiently reduce the risk?

Proportionality – even a legal reason for detention may be insufficient

Detention may occur according to Chapter 24, Section 1, third paragraph only if the reasons for the measure outweigh the intrusion or harm it entails for the suspect or any other opposing interest. The assessment should be made from the start and anew throughout the detention period.

Factor	What may need to be weighed
The seriousness of the suspicion and the crime	Degree of suspicion, the concrete seriousness of the crime, and realistic penalty – not just the name of the classification.
The strength of the risk	How likely, imminent, and harmful the alleged future event is.
Time	How long the detention has lasted, what has been done, and why the remaining investigation takes time.
Personal consequences	Age, health, disability, caregiving responsibilities, and other individual circumstances.
Alternatives	If travel bans, reporting obligations, surveillance, or a more limited intervention can achieve the purpose.

For individuals under 18 years of age, exceptional reasons are required for detention or remand according to the law with special provisions for young offenders. If age, health condition, or a similar circumstance means that detention could cause serious harm, Chapter 24, Section 4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure also contains a special rule that adequate supervision should be considered.

Restrictions in Detention – A Separate Decision

Detention and restrictions are not the same thing. Detention involves deprivation of liberty. Restrictions are specific limitations on contact with the outside world. The rules are found in Chapter 24, Section 5a of the Code of Judicial Procedure and Chapter 6 of the Detention Act (2010:611).

Three Steps in the Assessment of Restrictions

1. Risk of Collusion: There must be a risk that the suspect will destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the investigation. Risk of flight or recidivism is not sufficient in itself.
2. Court's Permission: At the prosecutor's request, the court assesses whether and how contacts may be restricted according to the categories in the Detention Act.
3. Ongoing Application: The investigating officer or prosecutor assesses issues of restrictions within the scope of the permission and must reassess the decision as often as there is reason to do so.

Each restriction must be proportionate. According to the general proportionality rule in the Detention Act, a control or coercive measure may only be used if it is reasonably proportionate to the purpose, and a less intrusive measure should be used if it suffices.

What Can Be Limited?

The court's permission and the specific restriction decision may concern limitations on the right to:

• be placed together with other detainees,
• participate in communal activities,
• follow what is happening in the outside world,
• possess magazines and newspapers,
• receive visits,
• communicate electronically, for example by telephone, and
• send and receive correspondence.

The court should assess the categories requested by the prosecutor, not just give an undifferentiated general approval. The specific implementation may also need to differentiate between different individuals, media, and situations.

Exceptions and Relaxations

A restriction does not need to be applied to the maximum extent in every situation. The prosecutor can assess exceptions or relaxations, such as a supervised visit, a phone call to a specific person, or co-seating with a specially chosen detainee, if the investigation risk can be managed. A factual request should specify the desired contact, why it is needed, and what protective measure can reduce the risk.

Later and Continued Restrictions

If new circumstances make it necessary, the prosecutor can, in an urgent situation, decide on a restriction category that the court has not previously allowed. The prosecutor must then request the court's assessment the same day or at the latest the next day. The court should hold a hearing as soon as possible and no later than within a week.

A restriction permit lapses if the court does not grant continued permission when it decides that the person should remain in detention or extends the indictment deadline. Restrictions should therefore be reassessed, not continue solely out of habit.

Contact with Defense Counsel and Other Detention Decisions

Contact with the defense counsel has special protection. A detainee has the right to meet their defense counsel, and when the defense counsel meets the requirements of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the meeting should take place in private. However, the issue of family contacts or contact with other persons is assessed within the restriction rules.

Not all limitations in detention are prosecutor restrictions. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service can make decisions regarding order, security, placement, and control according to the Detention Act. Which authority has made the decision and what legal support is cited determines how reassessment or appeal should be conducted.

How Long Can Someone Be Detained?

There are several time rules that must be distinguished: the time limit for the first hearing, the indictment deadline, the interval between new hearings, and the continuous maximum time before indictment.

Time Rule	Main Rule	Important Limitation
First Detention Hearing	No later than four days after arrest or relevant enforcement.	The procedural deadline is described in the guide on detention hearings.
New Review Before Prosecution	If prosecution is not initiated within two weeks: new hearing at intervals of no more than two weeks.	Longer intervals may be decided if a previous hearing would clearly be of no significance.
Adult Before Prosecution	A maximum of nine months of continuous detention in Sweden until prosecution.	The court may, at the prosecutor's request, allow an extension if there are exceptional reasons.
Under 18 Before Prosecution	A maximum of three months if the person was under 18 when the detention decision was enforced.	This period can also be exceeded for exceptional reasons, but children can only be detained or arrested for exceptional reasons.
After Prosecution	The nine-month and three-month limits do not apply as total limits after prosecution is initiated.	Continued detention must still always have a legal basis, be proportionate, and be handled expeditiously.

What is required to exceed nine months?

The prosecutor's request must be submitted to the court no later than 11 a.m. the day before the deadline expires. If neither prosecution nor such a request is submitted in time, the detention decision must be immediately revoked. The court must hold a hearing no later than the day the deadline expires.

To exceed the limit, exceptional reasons are required, indicating that the exception should be used restrictively. The scope or difficulty of the case may be relevant, but the court also needs to examine how the investigation has been conducted, whether delays could have been avoided, and whether continued detention is proportionate.

Prosecution does not automatically end detention

When prosecution is initiated, the case enters the court's criminal phase. The accused may remain detained until the main hearing and judgment, and the court must, in the event of a conviction, assess whether the detention should continue until the judgment becomes final. For a detained accused, special expeditiousness deadlines apply for the main hearing, but more time may be needed in extensive or otherwise complicated cases.

Detention time and a subsequent prison sentence

Time someone has been deprived of liberty due to the crimes being tried can, according to specific rules, be credited during the execution of a subsequent prison sentence. The exact calculation is a separate issue and does not imply that a long detention period is permissible in advance. The legality and proportionality of the detention must be continuously assessed regardless of potential future crediting.

Checklist for Detention Reasons and Restrictions

• What act and criminal classification are being tried, and what penalty scale applies?
• What specific circumstances, according to the prosecutor, reach probable cause?
• Is there a claim of flight risk, collusion risk, recidivism risk, or multiple reasons?
• What individual circumstance demonstrates each alleged risk?
• Has the risk decreased since the last hearing?
• What investigative measures remain and when will they be conducted?
• Can travel bans, reporting obligations, supervision, or other conditions suffice?
• What personal consequences should be considered in proportionality?
• What restriction categories has the court allowed?
• What specific restriction decision has the prosecutor or investigation leader made?
• Has the need for exceptions or relief been precisely described?
• When did the continuous detention period begin, when was prosecution initiated, and what deadline is relevant?

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it sufficient that the crime is serious for someone to be detained?

No, not according to the usual main rule. The court must assess the degree of suspicion, penalty scale, a specific detention reason, and proportionality. For crimes with a minimum penalty of one year and six months, a presumption rule applies, but it also has limitations and requires a court assessment.

Is "risk of influencing witnesses" always a collusion risk?

It can be a collusion risk, but the risk needs to be linked to actual persons, remaining interviews, or other specific investigative interests. The court should assess both possibility and risk, not just an abstract potential influence.

Can restrictions be decided due to flight risk?

Not solely on that basis. Restrictions on contact with the outside world according to Chapter 24, Section 5 a of the Code of Judicial Procedure require a collusion risk. Flight risk can justify the detention itself but does not replace the restriction requirement.

Does a detained person have the right to know why restrictions apply?

Decisions and the underlying circumstances must be documented. The detainee should receive the documentation to the extent it can be done without harm to the criminal investigation. The defense can request clarification and review of both the condition and the need for continued limitation.

Do restrictions automatically cease when prosecution is initiated?

Not necessarily. The risk of collusion can significantly decrease once the investigation is complete and the material has been secured, but the court must assess the current risk and proportionality. Restrictions cannot continue without legal grounds simply because they existed previously.

Is an adult never to be detained for more than nine months?

The nine-month rule applies to continuous detention in Sweden until charges are filed. The court may allow a longer period before charges if there are exceptional reasons. After charges are filed, nine months is not an absolute maximum, but continued detention requires ongoing legal grounds, proportionality, and expeditious processing.

Can a detention or restriction decision be appealed?

Yes. The district court's decision on detention, continued detention, and permission for restrictions can be appealed to the Court of Appeal without a specified appeal period according to Chapter 52, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. The decision remains in effect immediately unless a court changes it. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service's own decisions follow different review and appeal rules.

Official Sources and Further Reading

• Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740), particularly Chapters 24, Sections 1–5 a, 18–21, and Chapter 52, Section 1
• Detention Act (2010:611), particularly Chapters 1–3 and 6–7
• Detention Ordinance (2010:2011), particularly Section 23 on documentation of restrictions
• Act (1964:167) with Special Provisions on Young Offenders, Sections 23–23 a
• Swedish Prosecution Authority: Arrest and Detention
• Swedish Prosecution Authority: Restrictions
• Swedish Courts: Detention Hearing

Last reviewed against current legislation and official authority sources: July 29, 2026. The information is general and does not replace an individual assessment by a defense attorney or court. Risk assessments and proportionality may change as the investigation develops.