I målet fanns inga direkta bevis utan bara indicier - En bevisteoretisk studie av indiciebevisning
(2015) LAGM01 20151Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- En väl utförd bevisvärdering och ett högt ställt beviskrav är centralt för den enskildes rättssäkerhet. Examensuppsatsens främsta syfte är att utreda hur granskningen företas av indiciebevisning i förhållande till beviskravet och bevisvärderingen i brottmål. Syftet är uppbyggt kring tre grundpelare. Den första avser begreppsbestämning av indicier. Den andra och tredje berör hur domstolen utför sin bevisvärdering av indiciebevisning för att nå upp till beviskravet ställt utom rimligt tvivel.
Begreppet indicier är ett mångtydigt begrepp. För att uppfylla syftet ska begreppets betydelse bestämmas. Definitionen som förespråkas i uppsatsen är kopplat till det angloamerikanska uttrycket circumstantial evidence. Indicier är alltså... (More) - En väl utförd bevisvärdering och ett högt ställt beviskrav är centralt för den enskildes rättssäkerhet. Examensuppsatsens främsta syfte är att utreda hur granskningen företas av indiciebevisning i förhållande till beviskravet och bevisvärderingen i brottmål. Syftet är uppbyggt kring tre grundpelare. Den första avser begreppsbestämning av indicier. Den andra och tredje berör hur domstolen utför sin bevisvärdering av indiciebevisning för att nå upp till beviskravet ställt utom rimligt tvivel.
Begreppet indicier är ett mångtydigt begrepp. För att uppfylla syftet ska begreppets betydelse bestämmas. Definitionen som förespråkas i uppsatsen är kopplat till det angloamerikanska uttrycket circumstantial evidence. Indicier är alltså omständigheter som inte direkt hänförs till bevistemat, brottet eller brottsplatsen men är relevanta för dessa. Exempel på sådan bevisning är motiv, hotelser, våldsbenägenhet eller efterföljande handlande. Vad avser funktionen hos indicier kan ett ensamt sådant inte bevisa eller motbevisa ett bevistema. Däremot har det bevisvärde, i form av ett hjälpfaktum. Om det finns flera samverkande indicier kan dessa konstituera ett bevisfaktum i form av struktural bevisning. Syftet med sådan bevisning är att flera omständigheter bildar ett mönster eller struktur som resulterar i att bevistemat blir begripligt och förklarligt.
För att se hur rättstillämparen har granskat indiciebevisningen, dvs. den faktiska tillämpningen av indiciebevisning, har uppsatsen analyserat fem utvalda rättsfall. I NJA 1991 s. 56 uttalade Högsta domstolen att endast i undantagsfall kan en dom grundas på den negativa omständigheten att utredningen i målet inte synes ge utrymme för någon alternativ gärningsman. Uttalandet har fått stor inverkan på underrätternas tillämpning av indiciebevisning. I regel krävs det stödjande bevisning som positivt knyter den tilltalade till brottet eller brottsplatsen. Vad som krävs för uppfyllande av beviskravet ställt utom rimligt tvivel i ett mål med enbart indiciebevisning framträder under rättsfallsstudien. För en fällande dom krävs det i princip att utredningen besvarar frågor som Var?, Hur? och När?, frågorna utgör vad som i praxis har benämnts som minimikrav.
Vad avser bevisvärdering av indiciebevisning är domarens uppskattning av hur sannolikt ett bevis är för temat en förlegad syn. En sådan metod är inte lämplig i brottmål; ställt utom rimligt tvivel är inte ett sannolikhetskrav utan ett "sanningskrav". Hypotesmetoden är trots sina brister en fungerande metod för indiciebevisning. Min slutsats avseende indiciebevisning i förhållande till bevisvärderingen är behovet av ett klargörande och framhävande prejudikat som ställer upp vilka bevisvärderingsprinciper i mål med enbart indiciebevisning men även hur tillämpning ska ske av beviskravets nedre gräns. Under våren 2015 meddelade Högsta domstolen prövningstillstånd i ett mål som berör bevisvärdering och beviskravets nedre gräns. (Less) - Abstract
- A well-executed evaluation of evidence with a high standard of proof is of paramount importance to the legal rights of the individual. The main purpose of this essay is to examine how the evaluation of circumstantial evidence is carried out in relation to the standard of proof and its evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. This purpose is built on three basic pillars. The first concerns the definition of circumstantial evidence. The second and third concern the way courts evaluate circumstantial evidence in striving for the standard of proof that are beyond reasonable doubt.
The term ’circumstantial evidence’ is ambiguous. Before the purpose above can be reached the meaning of the term must be defined. The definition suggested in... (More) - A well-executed evaluation of evidence with a high standard of proof is of paramount importance to the legal rights of the individual. The main purpose of this essay is to examine how the evaluation of circumstantial evidence is carried out in relation to the standard of proof and its evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. This purpose is built on three basic pillars. The first concerns the definition of circumstantial evidence. The second and third concern the way courts evaluate circumstantial evidence in striving for the standard of proof that are beyond reasonable doubt.
The term ’circumstantial evidence’ is ambiguous. Before the purpose above can be reached the meaning of the term must be defined. The definition suggested in the essay is mainly based on the Anglo-American concept of circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are thus conditions that cannot directly be referred to the theme of proof, the crime or crime scene but are still relevant to them. Examples of this kind of evidence are motive, an expressed threat, a tendency to violence or subsequent actions. Considering the way circumstantial evidence function, one instance alone cannot prove or disprove a theme of proof. On the other hand, it can add value to the evidence by being a fact affecting the weight of evidence. If there are several unified instances of circumstantial evidence they can become evidentiary evidence in the form of structural evidence.
In order to understand how the adjudication process has assessed the circumstantial evidence, i.e. the actual implementation of circumstantial evidence, this essay analyses five selected cases. In NJA 1991 p. 56 the Supreme Court stated that basing a conviction on the negative circumstance that the investigation cannot even consider an alternative offender can only be accepted under special circumstances. This statement has had great impact on the implementation of circumstantial evidence by lower courts. As a rule supporting evidence is required that definitely ties the accused to the crime or crime scene. The requirements to meet the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a case with only circumstantial evidence becomes apparent in the case study. To get a conviction the investigation is required to answer the questions Where?, How? and Why? These questions make up what has in practice been termed the minimum requirements.
When it comes to evaluating of circumstantial evidence a judge’s estimation of the plausibility of this evidence, as theme of proof is an outdated view. Such a method is not suitable in a criminal case; beyond reasonable doubt is not a question of probability but one of truth. The hypothesis method, despite its deficits, works well in cases of circumstantial evidence. My conclusion concerning circumstantial evidence and the evaluation of evidence is that there is a need for a clarifying and prominent precedent that outlines the principles for evaluation of evidence in cases with only circumstantial evidence and also how the lowest level standard of proof is to be defined. In the spring of 2015 the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in a case concerning the lowest level of proof. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5431670
- author
- Noculak Nilsson, Sebastian LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Circumstantial evidence - A legal study
- course
- LAGM01 20151
- year
- 2015
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Indiciebevisning, indirekt bevisning, struktural bevisning, bevisvärdering, beviskrav, circumstantial evidence
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 5431670
- date added to LUP
- 2015-06-05 13:16:55
- date last changed
- 2015-06-05 13:16:55
@misc{5431670,
abstract = {{A well-executed evaluation of evidence with a high standard of proof is of paramount importance to the legal rights of the individual. The main purpose of this essay is to examine how the evaluation of circumstantial evidence is carried out in relation to the standard of proof and its evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. This purpose is built on three basic pillars. The first concerns the definition of circumstantial evidence. The second and third concern the way courts evaluate circumstantial evidence in striving for the standard of proof that are beyond reasonable doubt.
The term ’circumstantial evidence’ is ambiguous. Before the purpose above can be reached the meaning of the term must be defined. The definition suggested in the essay is mainly based on the Anglo-American concept of circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are thus conditions that cannot directly be referred to the theme of proof, the crime or crime scene but are still relevant to them. Examples of this kind of evidence are motive, an expressed threat, a tendency to violence or subsequent actions. Considering the way circumstantial evidence function, one instance alone cannot prove or disprove a theme of proof. On the other hand, it can add value to the evidence by being a fact affecting the weight of evidence. If there are several unified instances of circumstantial evidence they can become evidentiary evidence in the form of structural evidence.
In order to understand how the adjudication process has assessed the circumstantial evidence, i.e. the actual implementation of circumstantial evidence, this essay analyses five selected cases. In NJA 1991 p. 56 the Supreme Court stated that basing a conviction on the negative circumstance that the investigation cannot even consider an alternative offender can only be accepted under special circumstances. This statement has had great impact on the implementation of circumstantial evidence by lower courts. As a rule supporting evidence is required that definitely ties the accused to the crime or crime scene. The requirements to meet the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a case with only circumstantial evidence becomes apparent in the case study. To get a conviction the investigation is required to answer the questions Where?, How? and Why? These questions make up what has in practice been termed the minimum requirements.
When it comes to evaluating of circumstantial evidence a judge’s estimation of the plausibility of this evidence, as theme of proof is an outdated view. Such a method is not suitable in a criminal case; beyond reasonable doubt is not a question of probability but one of truth. The hypothesis method, despite its deficits, works well in cases of circumstantial evidence. My conclusion concerning circumstantial evidence and the evaluation of evidence is that there is a need for a clarifying and prominent precedent that outlines the principles for evaluation of evidence in cases with only circumstantial evidence and also how the lowest level standard of proof is to be defined. In the spring of 2015 the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in a case concerning the lowest level of proof.}},
author = {{Noculak Nilsson, Sebastian}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{I målet fanns inga direkta bevis utan bara indicier - En bevisteoretisk studie av indiciebevisning}},
year = {{2015}},
}