Bevisvärdering av motstridig sakkunnigbevisning i ljuset av robusthetskravet
(2020) LAGF03 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Arbetet syftar till att undersöka hur en domstol kan gå tillväga i bevisvärderingen av sakkunnigbevisning när det finns motstridig sådan och hur en sådan bevisvärdering förhåller sig till robusthetskravet. Robusthet är ett mått på sannolikheten att ett bevisfaktums stöd för ett tema förändras vid ytterligare utredning.
Med utgångspunkt i en deskriptiv del av arbetet, där bevisrättsliga principer och regleringar redogörs för, görs en rättsfallsstudie av ett hovrättsavgörande. Rättsfallet rör spädbarnsvåld och innehåller motstridiga sakkunnigutlåtanden. Domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisningen analyseras utifrån en indelning i ad hominem- och de re-värdering och på så sätt beskrivs vilka faktorer domstolen beaktar. Resultatet av... (More) - Arbetet syftar till att undersöka hur en domstol kan gå tillväga i bevisvärderingen av sakkunnigbevisning när det finns motstridig sådan och hur en sådan bevisvärdering förhåller sig till robusthetskravet. Robusthet är ett mått på sannolikheten att ett bevisfaktums stöd för ett tema förändras vid ytterligare utredning.
Med utgångspunkt i en deskriptiv del av arbetet, där bevisrättsliga principer och regleringar redogörs för, görs en rättsfallsstudie av ett hovrättsavgörande. Rättsfallet rör spädbarnsvåld och innehåller motstridiga sakkunnigutlåtanden. Domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisningen analyseras utifrån en indelning i ad hominem- och de re-värdering och på så sätt beskrivs vilka faktorer domstolen beaktar. Resultatet av bevisvärderingen diskuteras mot bakgrund av robusthetskravet och huruvida hypotetisk risk eller bara faktisk risk beaktas. Slutsatsen har dragits att domstolen lägger den tyngsta vikten vid ad hominem-värderingen och att domstolen till synes inte beaktar hypotetisk risk i robusthetskravet. (Less) - Abstract
- The thesis’ purpose is to examine how a court of law can evaluate expert testimony when both the prosecutor and the defense have called experts who give contrary statements. The examined evidence evaluation is thereafter analyzed with regards to the notion of robustness in evidence. Robustness is a way of measuring the probability that additional evidence will alter the probability based on the existing evidence that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime.
The descriptive section gives an account of principles and statutes of evidence law and will lay the basis for a case study. The prosecution in the case was an exceptionally gross assault of an infant child and both parties obtained expert testimony that was contrary to the... (More) - The thesis’ purpose is to examine how a court of law can evaluate expert testimony when both the prosecutor and the defense have called experts who give contrary statements. The examined evidence evaluation is thereafter analyzed with regards to the notion of robustness in evidence. Robustness is a way of measuring the probability that additional evidence will alter the probability based on the existing evidence that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime.
The descriptive section gives an account of principles and statutes of evidence law and will lay the basis for a case study. The prosecution in the case was an exceptionally gross assault of an infant child and both parties obtained expert testimony that was contrary to the other. The evidence evaluation of the expert testimony is analyzed by dividing the assessment in ad hominem-review and de re-review. Which factors that are taken into consideration by the court are investigated in the accordance of said division. The outcome of the evidence evaluation is discussed in the light of the notion of robustness and whether the robustness should include a hypothetical risk or merely a factual risk. The conclusion of the thesis is that in the assessment of expert testimony the court mainly considers ad hominem-factors and with regards to the notion of robustness the court seemingly does not acknowledge hypothetical risk. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010925
- author
- Blad, Zackarias LU
- supervisor
-
- Tova Bennet LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffprocessrätt, straffrätt, bevisrätt, sakkunnigbevisning, robusthetskravet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010925
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-18 11:43:10
- date last changed
- 2020-09-18 11:43:10
@misc{9010925,
abstract = {{The thesis’ purpose is to examine how a court of law can evaluate expert testimony when both the prosecutor and the defense have called experts who give contrary statements. The examined evidence evaluation is thereafter analyzed with regards to the notion of robustness in evidence. Robustness is a way of measuring the probability that additional evidence will alter the probability based on the existing evidence that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime.
The descriptive section gives an account of principles and statutes of evidence law and will lay the basis for a case study. The prosecution in the case was an exceptionally gross assault of an infant child and both parties obtained expert testimony that was contrary to the other. The evidence evaluation of the expert testimony is analyzed by dividing the assessment in ad hominem-review and de re-review. Which factors that are taken into consideration by the court are investigated in the accordance of said division. The outcome of the evidence evaluation is discussed in the light of the notion of robustness and whether the robustness should include a hypothetical risk or merely a factual risk. The conclusion of the thesis is that in the assessment of expert testimony the court mainly considers ad hominem-factors and with regards to the notion of robustness the court seemingly does not acknowledge hypothetical risk.}},
author = {{Blad, Zackarias}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Bevisvärdering av motstridig sakkunnigbevisning i ljuset av robusthetskravet}},
year = {{2020}},
}