Åtalsunderlåtelse i konkurrensfall
(2013) LAGF03 20131Department of Law
- Abstract
- The primary rule of absolute duty to prosecute is stated in 20:6 RB. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to engage prosecution when there is sufficient evidence for a conviction. The possibility of waiver of prosecution is stated in 20:7 RB and is an exception from the absolute duty of prosecution. The prosecutor can decide to waive prosecution for minor offense not resulting in any other penalties than a fine or the penalty will not be any other than a conditional sentence and there is also particular reasons to decide to waive prosecution, in crime concurrence cases or if the suspect is receiving or is going to receive psychiatric care or other measures under LSS. Besides these grounds a waiver of prosecution can be granted in... (More)
- The primary rule of absolute duty to prosecute is stated in 20:6 RB. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to engage prosecution when there is sufficient evidence for a conviction. The possibility of waiver of prosecution is stated in 20:7 RB and is an exception from the absolute duty of prosecution. The prosecutor can decide to waive prosecution for minor offense not resulting in any other penalties than a fine or the penalty will not be any other than a conditional sentence and there is also particular reasons to decide to waive prosecution, in crime concurrence cases or if the suspect is receiving or is going to receive psychiatric care or other measures under LSS. Besides these grounds a waiver of prosecution can be granted in extraordinary cases if it is obvious for special reasons that no penalty is needed for the suspect to refrain him- or herself from criminal actions and no other circumstances require prosecution. According to 20:7 1st RB there should be no important public or private interest in conflict with a decision to waive prosecution. If so, the prosecutor is obliged to prosecute. Clearer guidelines from RÅ could be useful about this basic precondition. The question of guilt is determined when an investigation is completed and when there is proof of the guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Statistics show that the number of decisions to waive prosecution has decreased and that it is not clear whether the frequency of relapses is affected by the number of waivers of prosecution.
The waiver of prosecution in crime concurrence cases is probably a necessity for reasons of procedural economy and in order to concentrate the resources of the legal system on more severe crimes. It seems like only those who advocate for stricter absolute duty to prosecute would like to restrict the waiver of prosecution. I have not been able to state my own opinion in the matter although more questions have emerged. In short, I have not been able to answer the question whether 20:7 1st 3p RB stating the possibility of waiver of prosecution in crime concurrence cases needs to be changed and if so, in what way. A far greater investigation of consultation bodies and more extensive doctrine would be needed to answer this question. However, there are doubts whether 20:7 1st 3p RB is formulated in the best possible way. There may be certain flaws, risks and negative consequences in deciding on waiver of prosecution in crime concurrence cases in relation to the principle of equality, the people’s trust in the legal system and the injured party and the offender. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3800620
- author
- Larsson, Emma LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Waiver of prosecution in criminal concurrence cases
- course
- LAGF03 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- åtalsunderlåtelse, åtal, process, konkurrensfall, straffprocessrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3800620
- date added to LUP
- 2013-09-11 14:20:42
- date last changed
- 2013-09-11 14:20:42
@misc{3800620,
abstract = {{The primary rule of absolute duty to prosecute is stated in 20:6 RB. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to engage prosecution when there is sufficient evidence for a conviction. The possibility of waiver of prosecution is stated in 20:7 RB and is an exception from the absolute duty of prosecution. The prosecutor can decide to waive prosecution for minor offense not resulting in any other penalties than a fine or the penalty will not be any other than a conditional sentence and there is also particular reasons to decide to waive prosecution, in crime concurrence cases or if the suspect is receiving or is going to receive psychiatric care or other measures under LSS. Besides these grounds a waiver of prosecution can be granted in extraordinary cases if it is obvious for special reasons that no penalty is needed for the suspect to refrain him- or herself from criminal actions and no other circumstances require prosecution. According to 20:7 1st RB there should be no important public or private interest in conflict with a decision to waive prosecution. If so, the prosecutor is obliged to prosecute. Clearer guidelines from RÅ could be useful about this basic precondition. The question of guilt is determined when an investigation is completed and when there is proof of the guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Statistics show that the number of decisions to waive prosecution has decreased and that it is not clear whether the frequency of relapses is affected by the number of waivers of prosecution.
The waiver of prosecution in crime concurrence cases is probably a necessity for reasons of procedural economy and in order to concentrate the resources of the legal system on more severe crimes. It seems like only those who advocate for stricter absolute duty to prosecute would like to restrict the waiver of prosecution. I have not been able to state my own opinion in the matter although more questions have emerged. In short, I have not been able to answer the question whether 20:7 1st 3p RB stating the possibility of waiver of prosecution in crime concurrence cases needs to be changed and if so, in what way. A far greater investigation of consultation bodies and more extensive doctrine would be needed to answer this question. However, there are doubts whether 20:7 1st 3p RB is formulated in the best possible way. There may be certain flaws, risks and negative consequences in deciding on waiver of prosecution in crime concurrence cases in relation to the principle of equality, the people’s trust in the legal system and the injured party and the offender.}},
author = {{Larsson, Emma}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Åtalsunderlåtelse i konkurrensfall}},
year = {{2013}},
}