Att smita från en bilolycka – en mänsklig rättighet?
(2017) LAGF03 20171Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Trafikbrottslagens 5 § ålägger alla trafikanter, som är inblandade i en trafikolycka, att stanna kvar på platsen för olyckan och lämna upplysningar om händelsen. Uppsatsen undersöker om denna upplysningsplikt kan strida mot Europakonventionens sjätte artikel och skyddet mot självinkriminering, som innebär att en misstänkt person aldrig ska behöva bidra till utredningen om sin egen brottslighet. Europadomstolen har aldrig tagit ställning till någon bestämmelse, som direkt kan jämföras med 5 § Trafikbrottslagen. Men mot bakgrund av Europadomstolens praxis i övrigt, kan bestämmelsen i sig inte sägas strida mot självbelastningsskyddet. En person kan därmed fällas för obehörigt avvikande från olycksplats, utan att domen innebär en kränkning av... (More)
- Trafikbrottslagens 5 § ålägger alla trafikanter, som är inblandade i en trafikolycka, att stanna kvar på platsen för olyckan och lämna upplysningar om händelsen. Uppsatsen undersöker om denna upplysningsplikt kan strida mot Europakonventionens sjätte artikel och skyddet mot självinkriminering, som innebär att en misstänkt person aldrig ska behöva bidra till utredningen om sin egen brottslighet. Europadomstolen har aldrig tagit ställning till någon bestämmelse, som direkt kan jämföras med 5 § Trafikbrottslagen. Men mot bakgrund av Europadomstolens praxis i övrigt, kan bestämmelsen i sig inte sägas strida mot självbelastningsskyddet. En person kan därmed fällas för obehörigt avvikande från olycksplats, utan att domen innebär en kränkning av den tilltalades rättigheter.
Upplysningsplikten i 5 § Trafikbrottslagen kan dock resultera i att, exempelvis rattfulla förare, tvingas lämna information om vad som föranledde olyckan. Om den framtvingade informationen därefter läggs till grund för en fällande rattfylleridom, innebär det en kränkning av den tilltalades skydd mot självinkriminering.
Denna uppsats har också undersökt hur intressekonflikten har hanterats i svensk rättstillämpning. Högsta domstolen har ännu inte tagit ställning i frågan, men hovrätterna har lyft fram och diskuterat problematiken i sex avgöranden. Hovrätten över Västra Sverige menar att skyddet mot självinkriminering inte är tillämpligt i denna situation, samtidigt som Svea Hovrätt har nått den motsatta slutsatsen.
Enligt min mening, vilar både den formella och materiella rättssäkerheten på domstolarnas axlar, i detta fall. Den inkonsekventa rättstillämpningen omintetgör förutsägbarheten och den formella rättssäkerheten. Om domstolarna skulle lägga framtvingad bevisning till grund för en fällande dom, skulle också den materiella rättssäkerheten skadas. (Less) - Abstract
- Section 5 of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act, requires all persons involved in a traffic accident to remain at the scene of the accident and provide information about the incident. This essay examines whether the obligation to disclose certain information about the incident, may violate the sixth article of the European Convention on human rights and the protection against self-incrimination. According to the protection against self-incrimination, a suspect should never have to contribute to the investigation of his own crime. The European Court of Human Rights has never taken a stand on any provision, which is directly comparable with the fifth section of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act. However, in the light of the European Court’s case... (More)
- Section 5 of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act, requires all persons involved in a traffic accident to remain at the scene of the accident and provide information about the incident. This essay examines whether the obligation to disclose certain information about the incident, may violate the sixth article of the European Convention on human rights and the protection against self-incrimination. According to the protection against self-incrimination, a suspect should never have to contribute to the investigation of his own crime. The European Court of Human Rights has never taken a stand on any provision, which is directly comparable with the fifth section of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act. However, in the light of the European Court’s case law in general, the Swedish provision itself does not violate the protection against self-incrimination. A person may therefore be convicted of leaving the scene of a traffic accident, without the sentence being a violation of the accused's rights.
Section 5 of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act may, however, force intoxicated drivers for an instance, to provide information about what caused the accident. If this information later results in a convicting sentence, it violates the accused's protection against self-incrimination.
This essay has also examined how this conflict of interests has been addressed by Swedish courts. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this issue, but the courts of Appeal have discussed the matter in six decisions. The Court of Appeal for Western Sweden argues that the protection against self-incrimination is not applicable in this situation, while Svea Court of Appeal has reached the opposite conclusion.
In my opinion, both the formal and substantive rule of law rests on the court's shoulders, in this case. The inconsistent application of law, damages the predictability and the formal rule of law. If courts were to base a convicting sentence on the enforced information, the substantive rule of law would also be damaged. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8908167
- author
- Aronsson, Fanny LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Processrätt, Självinkriminering, Trafikolyckor
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8908167
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-29 13:02:06
- date last changed
- 2017-12-11 12:38:17
@misc{8908167,
abstract = {{Section 5 of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act, requires all persons involved in a traffic accident to remain at the scene of the accident and provide information about the incident. This essay examines whether the obligation to disclose certain information about the incident, may violate the sixth article of the European Convention on human rights and the protection against self-incrimination. According to the protection against self-incrimination, a suspect should never have to contribute to the investigation of his own crime. The European Court of Human Rights has never taken a stand on any provision, which is directly comparable with the fifth section of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act. However, in the light of the European Court’s case law in general, the Swedish provision itself does not violate the protection against self-incrimination. A person may therefore be convicted of leaving the scene of a traffic accident, without the sentence being a violation of the accused's rights.
Section 5 of the Swedish Traffic Crimes Act may, however, force intoxicated drivers for an instance, to provide information about what caused the accident. If this information later results in a convicting sentence, it violates the accused's protection against self-incrimination.
This essay has also examined how this conflict of interests has been addressed by Swedish courts. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this issue, but the courts of Appeal have discussed the matter in six decisions. The Court of Appeal for Western Sweden argues that the protection against self-incrimination is not applicable in this situation, while Svea Court of Appeal has reached the opposite conclusion.
In my opinion, both the formal and substantive rule of law rests on the court's shoulders, in this case. The inconsistent application of law, damages the predictability and the formal rule of law. If courts were to base a convicting sentence on the enforced information, the substantive rule of law would also be damaged.}},
author = {{Aronsson, Fanny}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Att smita från en bilolycka – en mänsklig rättighet?}},
year = {{2017}},
}