Public Prosecution Authority

The Public Prosecution Authority is the Swedish prosecutorial institution appearing in the novel, most clearly through prosecutor Kenneth von Kwist and his dealings with the police investigation led by Jeanette Kihlberg. Its role is defined less by an account of formal structure than by scenes at and around its offices: the authority is a workplace, a partner in criminal investigations, and the setting for a consequential act of evidence destruction. Through Kenneth, the narrative exposes the difference between institutional authority and the pursuit of justice, while stopping short of treating his conduct as proof of the whole organization’s behavior.

Offices and institutional setting

Kenneth’s route to work makes the authority a specific presence in the city. He gets off the metro at Hötorget, struggles to orient himself among its many exits, and emerges near the Concert House. In the rain, he walks west along Kungsgatan, crossing several streets on the way to the Public Prosecution Authority. He is in no hurry to arrive; his reluctance reflects the pressure surrounding his position, as he believes that whatever course he takes will leave him the loser.

The authority is also identified through the heading Klara Sjö – Public Prosecution Authority. The prose describes Klara Sjö as polluted, difficult to see into, and rendered nearly unusable by drains, industry, and traffic. That description is explicitly likened to the nearby authority. The comparison creates an image of opacity around the institution, but it is a narrative juxtaposition rather than a factual account of the authority’s operations. Its effect becomes sharper when the story turns from this obscured view to Kenneth’s concrete handling of a case file.

Relationship with the police investigation

The authority and the police are distinct participants in the investigation, connected through exchanges between prosecutors and detectives. Jeanette discusses the work still under way, including inquiries and leads being pursued by her colleagues, while expressing the urgency of resolving the case. Kenneth is part of this prosecutorial environment, but the investigative scenes also show friction rather than seamless cooperation: he has previously opposed Jeanette’s promotion and supported another candidate, a man, with the unofficial backing of a prosecutor identified by surname as von Kwist. The account connects that opposition to Jeanette’s gender and says that his disapproval continued to affect their relationship after she received the position.

A sharp instance of prosecutorial influence occurs when Kenneth tells Jeanette to abandon the Furugård lead. He says the suspect has an alibi and accepts that listening to Jeanette had been a serious mistake. The exchange shows the authority’s reach into the direction of the investigation, while also registering how a confident prosecutorial judgment can close off a line of inquiry. The episode documents Kenneth’s decision and its effect on Jeanette; it does not establish that the authority as a whole adopted his view or acted improperly.

Other investigative developments widen the context in which the authority operates. Jeanette and Jens Hurtig discuss Sihtunum i Diasporan, a foundation whose name they interpret as Sigtuna in exile and whose members have connections to the boarding school at Sigtuna. Jeanette later links Bengt Bergman, Viggo Dürer, and Karl Lundström, as well as Per-Ola Silfverberg, to the foundation, and raises information that former commissioner Gert Berglind knew Karl through a foundation. These are leads assembled in the police investigation, not findings attributed to the Public Prosecution Authority. Their relevance is that they point toward a network whose connections may reach beyond individual cases and make prosecutorial scrutiny especially consequential.

Kenneth von Kwist and the old file

The clearest evidence of the authority’s internal vulnerability comes through Kenneth’s response to material involving Per-Ola Silfverberg. As he examines photographs, he thinks that Viggo Dürer’s involvement has drawn him into a situation he would otherwise have avoided. Jeanette’s sense of justice makes her difficult for him to predict or manage. Kenneth concludes that he cannot silence her in the usual way and instead decides to keep her from accessing the material he controls. The narration identifies his intended action as criminal.

Kenneth takes a thirteen-year-old file from the bottom drawer of his desk and switches on the shredder. Before destroying the document, he reads a Danish defence lawyer’s argument in the case against Per-Ola: the allegations lack precise dates and locations, the lawyer says, and the case depends on the girl’s credibility. Kenneth then feeds the page into the machine, which turns it into tiny, illegible strips. The scene makes the act concrete: this is not simply a failure to share information, but the deliberate destruction of a document that could matter to Jeanette’s access to the case material. The old file’s age and its connection to an earlier proceeding also suggest how institutional records can preserve both evidence and past attempts to undermine a complainant’s account.

Institutional stakes and narrative significance

The authority’s significance lies in this contrast between public function and individual conduct. It is the destination of a prosecutor’s daily route and a formal counterpart to police work; yet the narrative’s most consequential prosecutorial scene presents a desk drawer, a thirteen-year-old file, and a shredder. Kenneth’s choice places the control of records at the center of the conflict: Jeanette is trying to pursue a case, while a prosecutor with access to relevant material acts to prevent her from seeing it.

The investigation also turns on information that must be assembled across people and cases. Jeanette knows of a payment of half a million kronor into Annette Lundström’s account that she suspects may be a bribe, though its source has not been traced. Sofia Zetterlund has told her that Ulrika Wendin had substantial cash and suggested that Dürer might be behind it; a letter from Karl Lundström to Linnea also names Dürer as a possible paedophile, a suspicion echoed in Linnea’s childhood drawings. These are suspicions and leads, not established conclusions, and Jeanette’s effort to investigate them depends on access to evidence rather than assumption. Against that work, Kenneth’s destruction of the old page gives the authority’s presence a pointed narrative meaning: a prosecutorial institution can be a venue for accountability, but its power over information can also obstruct it when an individual officeholder chooses concealment.