Riksåklagarens roll vid ansökan om prövningstillstånd i hovrätt
(2012) JURM02 20121Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Riksåklagaren är Sveriges högsta allmänna åklagare och allmän åklagare i HD. Riksåklagaren har en central roll inom rättsväsendet. Han ska bland annat verka för en enhetlig rättstillämpning, vilket till stor del utförs genom Riksåklagarens yttranden i sina svarsskrivelser och överklagandeskrifter i mål som överklagas till HD.
År 1993 infördes ett system med prövningstillstånd avseende vissa brottmål i hovrätten, för att underlätta den ökande arbetsbördan på domstolarna. Reglerna avseende prövningstillstånd i hovrätten för brottmål har genomgått ett flertal reformer efter införandet. I denna uppsats har jag granskat två av dessa reformer, reformen som kom att likställa Riksåklagaren med enskild part och processreformen En modernare... (More) - Riksåklagaren är Sveriges högsta allmänna åklagare och allmän åklagare i HD. Riksåklagaren har en central roll inom rättsväsendet. Han ska bland annat verka för en enhetlig rättstillämpning, vilket till stor del utförs genom Riksåklagarens yttranden i sina svarsskrivelser och överklagandeskrifter i mål som överklagas till HD.
År 1993 infördes ett system med prövningstillstånd avseende vissa brottmål i hovrätten, för att underlätta den ökande arbetsbördan på domstolarna. Reglerna avseende prövningstillstånd i hovrätten för brottmål har genomgått ett flertal reformer efter införandet. I denna uppsats har jag granskat två av dessa reformer, reformen som kom att likställa Riksåklagaren med enskild part och processreformen En modernare rättegång (EMR). Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att, utifrån ett utvärderingsperspektiv, undersöka hur de båda reformerna förhåller sig till varandra. Jag har vidare haft för avsikt att analysera om reformerna har fått önskat genomslag, samt om Riksåklagarens inställning till prövningstillstånd i hovrätt har förändrats över tid.
I juli år 2004 trädde reformen om att likställa Riksåklagaren med enskild part avseende prövningstillstånd i hovrätt och HD i kraft. Lagändringen hade initierats av Riksåklagaren, eftersom de äldre bestämmelserna inte bedömdes förenliga med likställighetsprincipen och de förändringar som i övrigt skett inom området för brottmålsprocessen. Föregående bestämmelser hade undantagit Riksåklagaren från kravet på prövningstillstånd, vilket Riksåklagaren vid bestämmelsernas införande var positiv till.
Av 49 kap. 13 § RB framgår vilka brottmål som omfattas av kravet på prövningstillstånd. EMR trädde i kraft i slutet av år 2008, men var inte tänkt att innebära någon ändring i sak avseende brottmålen. Reformen medförde dock att bestämmelsen i 49 kap. 14 § RB, vilken föreskriver när prövningstillstånd ska meddelas, kom att ändras. Bestämmelsen fick en obligatorisk utformning och tillståndsgrunderna justerades. Prejudikatdispens och extraordinär dispens behölls oförändrade i förhållande till tidigare bestämmelser, men ordalydelsen avseende ändringsdispens modifierades och en ny tillståndsgrund, granskningsdispens, infördes.
Av studien framgår bland annat att Riksåklagaren har ändrat sin inställning till prövningstillstånd i hovrätt, vilket främst synes ha berott på att HD meddelat avgöranden i strid med Riksåklagarens initiala inställning. Riksåklagaren har sällan argumenterat kring frågan om prövningstillstånd på eget initiativ, utan har i det stora flertalet mål enbart bemött den tilltalades yrkanden. Riksåklagarens och HD:s argumentation kring prövningstillstånd har överensstämt i endast hälften av de analyserade målen. (Less) - Abstract
- The Chief Public Prosecutor is Sweden's most high-ranked public prosecutor and public prosecutor in the Supreme Court. The Chief Public Prosecutor has a central role in the legal system. He will, among other tasks, work for a uniform application of the law, which is mainly achieved by the Chief Prosecutor´s opinions in his replies and appeal papers in the cases being appealed to the Supreme Court.
In 1993, a system of leave to appeal for certain criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal, in order to facilitate the increasing workload on the courts, was introduced. The rules for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals for criminal cases have undergone several reforms since the introduction. In this paper, I examined two of these... (More) - The Chief Public Prosecutor is Sweden's most high-ranked public prosecutor and public prosecutor in the Supreme Court. The Chief Public Prosecutor has a central role in the legal system. He will, among other tasks, work for a uniform application of the law, which is mainly achieved by the Chief Prosecutor´s opinions in his replies and appeal papers in the cases being appealed to the Supreme Court.
In 1993, a system of leave to appeal for certain criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal, in order to facilitate the increasing workload on the courts, was introduced. The rules for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals for criminal cases have undergone several reforms since the introduction. In this paper, I examined two of these reforms, the reform that came to equal the Chief Public Prosecutor with a private party and the reform process, A Modern Court Proceeding (MCP). The purpose of this paper has been to, from an evaluation perspective, examine how the two reforms relate to one another. I have also intended to analyze whether the reforms have had the desired impact, and if the Chief Public Prosecutor has changed his attitude towards leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal over time.
In July 2004 the reform, which equals the Chief Public Prosecutor with a private party in respect to leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, came into force. The amendment was initiated by the Chief Public Prosecutor, since the principle of equality and the other changes in the criminal procedure were not deemed compatible with the old rules. Previous regulations had exempted the Chief Public Prosecutor from the requirement for leave to appeal, a condition the Chief Public Prosecutor had welcomed when the provisions were presented.
Of Chapter 49. § 13 RB follows that criminal cases are subject to the requirement for leave to appeal. MCP came into force in late 2008, but was not meant to imply a change in subject regarding criminal cases. However, the reform meant that the provision in Chapter 49. § 14 RB, which prescribes when the leave to appeal shall be notified, did change. The provision did get a mandatory form and the state grounds were adjusted. Precedent exemption and extraordinary exemption was retained unchanged in comparison with the earlier provision but the wording of the amendment exemption was modified and a new permission basis, scrutinize exemption, was introduced.
From the study follows in particular that the Chief Public Prosecutor has changed his position to leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which primarily have been due to the Supreme Court informed practice in violation of the Chief Prosecutor´s initial approach. The Chief Public Prosecutor has rarely argued on the question of leave to appeal on his own initiative. Instead he has in most cases merely responded to the defendant's claims. The Chief Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Court's arguments on leave to appeal have been in compliance in only half of the analyzed cases. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2764508
- author
- Svensson Sönne, Elin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The Chief Public Prosecutor´s role in the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal
- course
- JURM02 20121
- year
- 2012
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, straffrätt, riksåklagaren, prövningstillstånd
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 2764508
- date added to LUP
- 2012-10-15 12:38:40
- date last changed
- 2012-10-15 12:38:40
@misc{2764508,
abstract = {{The Chief Public Prosecutor is Sweden's most high-ranked public prosecutor and public prosecutor in the Supreme Court. The Chief Public Prosecutor has a central role in the legal system. He will, among other tasks, work for a uniform application of the law, which is mainly achieved by the Chief Prosecutor´s opinions in his replies and appeal papers in the cases being appealed to the Supreme Court.
In 1993, a system of leave to appeal for certain criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal, in order to facilitate the increasing workload on the courts, was introduced. The rules for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals for criminal cases have undergone several reforms since the introduction. In this paper, I examined two of these reforms, the reform that came to equal the Chief Public Prosecutor with a private party and the reform process, A Modern Court Proceeding (MCP). The purpose of this paper has been to, from an evaluation perspective, examine how the two reforms relate to one another. I have also intended to analyze whether the reforms have had the desired impact, and if the Chief Public Prosecutor has changed his attitude towards leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal over time.
In July 2004 the reform, which equals the Chief Public Prosecutor with a private party in respect to leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, came into force. The amendment was initiated by the Chief Public Prosecutor, since the principle of equality and the other changes in the criminal procedure were not deemed compatible with the old rules. Previous regulations had exempted the Chief Public Prosecutor from the requirement for leave to appeal, a condition the Chief Public Prosecutor had welcomed when the provisions were presented.
Of Chapter 49. § 13 RB follows that criminal cases are subject to the requirement for leave to appeal. MCP came into force in late 2008, but was not meant to imply a change in subject regarding criminal cases. However, the reform meant that the provision in Chapter 49. § 14 RB, which prescribes when the leave to appeal shall be notified, did change. The provision did get a mandatory form and the state grounds were adjusted. Precedent exemption and extraordinary exemption was retained unchanged in comparison with the earlier provision but the wording of the amendment exemption was modified and a new permission basis, scrutinize exemption, was introduced.
From the study follows in particular that the Chief Public Prosecutor has changed his position to leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, which primarily have been due to the Supreme Court informed practice in violation of the Chief Prosecutor´s initial approach. The Chief Public Prosecutor has rarely argued on the question of leave to appeal on his own initiative. Instead he has in most cases merely responded to the defendant's claims. The Chief Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Court's arguments on leave to appeal have been in compliance in only half of the analyzed cases.}},
author = {{Svensson Sönne, Elin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Riksåklagarens roll vid ansökan om prövningstillstånd i hovrätt}},
year = {{2012}},
}