Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Förklara dig för att försvara dig - En studie av förklaringsbördans förhållande till oskyldighetspresumtionen

Rosenberg, Erik LU (2021) JURM02 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Var och en som anklagas för brott ska enligt Europakonventionen tillförsäkras rätten till en rättvis rättegång samt rätten att betraktas som oskyldig fram till dess att motsatsen bevisats. Genom denna oskyldighetspresumtion ska den tilltalade i en brottmålsrättegång inte behöva bevisa sig fri och har därför även rätten att vara tyst. Som en konsekvens av oskyldighetspresumtionen är det därför åklagaren som har bevisbördan och uppgiften att med den bevisning denne presenterar styrka den tilltalades skuld bortom rimligt tvivel.
Parallellt med dessa grundläggande rättigheter tillämpas i Sverige fri bevisvärdering, vilket innebär att domstolen fritt värderar allt det som förekommit i målet. Principen om fri bevisvärdering skulle ensam kunna... (More)
Var och en som anklagas för brott ska enligt Europakonventionen tillförsäkras rätten till en rättvis rättegång samt rätten att betraktas som oskyldig fram till dess att motsatsen bevisats. Genom denna oskyldighetspresumtion ska den tilltalade i en brottmålsrättegång inte behöva bevisa sig fri och har därför även rätten att vara tyst. Som en konsekvens av oskyldighetspresumtionen är det därför åklagaren som har bevisbördan och uppgiften att med den bevisning denne presenterar styrka den tilltalades skuld bortom rimligt tvivel.
Parallellt med dessa grundläggande rättigheter tillämpas i Sverige fri bevisvärdering, vilket innebär att domstolen fritt värderar allt det som förekommit i målet. Principen om fri bevisvärdering skulle ensam kunna anses tala för att det i svensk rätt finns en möjlighet att tillmäta den tilltalades tystnad bevisverkan. Därutöver återfinns i rättegångsbalken även en bevisvärderingsregel som uttryckligen ger stöd för detta.
Dessa regler möjliggör användandet av en så kallad förklaringsbörda, vilket innebär att underlåtenheten att lämna en godtagbar förklaring av en viss omständighet används mot den tilltalade vid bevisvärderingen.
Förklaringsbördan är dock problematisk ur rättssäkerhetssynpunkt och dess förenlighet med oskyldighetspresumtionen har ifrågasatts i doktrinen. Huvud-delen av denna kritik avser det tvång att uttala sig som den tilltalade riskerar uppleva om tystnaden kan få negativ verkan, samt att förklaringsbördan genom att fylla ut åklagarens bevisbörda riskerar leda till att fler oskyldiga döms.
Varken förarbetena eller bestämmelserna i svensk rätt innehåller några kon-kreta begränsningar om när eller i vilken utsträckning det är möjligt att an-vända en förklaringsbörda. Begränsningar har dock meddelats i svensk och Europarättslig praxis.
Enligt den praxis som föreligger är det inte tillåtet att låta den tilltalades tystnad ensamt eller huvudsakligen utgöra den avgörande bevisningen som lagts till grund för en fällande dom. Däremot har både Högsta domstolen och Europa-domstolen framhållit att tystnaden, i särskilda situationer som uppenbarligen kräver en förklaring, kan få bevisverkan.
Förklaringsbördans aktualiserande är därmed beroende av bevisläget mot den tilltalade. Europadomstolen har även angett att tystnaden endast får användas som bevis för den tilltalades skuld i situationer det i enlighet med sunt förnuft går att utesluta alla andra orsaker till tystnaden.
På grund av osäkerheten kring hur Europadomstolens krav på bevisningen mot den tilltalade tolkas, samt tolkningen av hur förnuftsprövningen ska genomföras, går det inte att säkert säga när förklaringsbördan inträder. Säkert är dock att förklaringsbördan måste tillämpas mycket restriktivt för att inte vara i strid med oskyldighetspresumtionen. (Less)
Abstract
According to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone accused of a crime must be guaranteed the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Due to the presumption of innocence, the accused in a criminal trial should not have to prove his or her innocence and therefore also has the right to remain silent. As a consequence of the presumption of innocence, it is the prosecutor who has the legal burden of proof and has the task of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence.
At the same time as these fundamental rights must be taken into account, the courts in Sweden apply free evaluation of evidence, which means that... (More)
According to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone accused of a crime must be guaranteed the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Due to the presumption of innocence, the accused in a criminal trial should not have to prove his or her innocence and therefore also has the right to remain silent. As a consequence of the presumption of innocence, it is the prosecutor who has the legal burden of proof and has the task of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence.
At the same time as these fundamental rights must be taken into account, the courts in Sweden apply free evaluation of evidence, which means that the court freely evaluates everything that has occurred in the case. The principle of free evaluation of evidence could alone indicate that there is an opportunity to draw adverse inferences from the defendant´s silence. There is in addition to the principle of free evaluation of evidence also a rule in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure that explicitly supports this.
These rules enable the use of a so-called burden of explanation , which means that the failure to provide a plausible explanation of a certain circumstance is used as evidence against the defendant.
However, the burden of explanation is problematic from the point of view of legal certainty and its compatibility with the presumption of innocence has been questioned in juridical doctrine. The main part of this criticism refers to the fact that the defendant might feel forced to provide an explanation if the court is able to draw inferences from their silence, and that the burden of ex-planation might be easing the prosecutions requirement to bear the onus of providing the allegations against him. The use of a burden of explanation therefore might lead to more innocent people being convicted.
Neither the Swedish law or its legislative history contain any specific restrictions on when or to what extent it is possible to use an explanatory bur-den. Restrictions have, however, been stated in Swedish and European legal practice.
According to existing legal practice, it is not permissible to allow the silence of the accused to constitute the sole or even main basis of the evidence on which a conviction is based. On the other hand, both the Supreme Court of Sweden and the European Court of Justice have emphasized that silence, in special situations that clearly calls for an explanation, can be taken into ac-count in the evaluation of the evidence.
The actualization of the burden of explanation is thus dependent on the significance of the evidence presented against the defendant. The European Court of Justice has also stated that silence may only be used as evidence of the defendant's guilt in situations where it is the only common-sense conclusion and all possible exculpating reasons have been excluded.
Due to uncertainties regarding how the European Court of Justice's requirements on the weight of the evidence presented against the defendant, as well as how the requirement on the common-sense conclusion, are interpreted, it is not possible to say with certainty when the burden of explanation actually arises. It is certain, however, that the burden of explanation must be applied very restrictively in order not to be in conflict with the presumption of innocence. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rosenberg, Erik LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Explain yourself to defend yourself - The explanatory burden and the presumption of innocence
course
JURM02 20211
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt (en. criminal law)
language
Swedish
id
9046397
date added to LUP
2021-06-12 19:04:03
date last changed
2021-06-12 19:04:03
@misc{9046397,
  abstract     = {{According to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone accused of a crime must be guaranteed the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Due to the presumption of innocence, the accused in a criminal trial should not have to prove his or her innocence and therefore also has the right to remain silent. As a consequence of the presumption of innocence, it is the prosecutor who has the legal burden of proof and has the task of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting evidence.
At the same time as these fundamental rights must be taken into account, the courts in Sweden apply free evaluation of evidence, which means that the court freely evaluates everything that has occurred in the case. The principle of free evaluation of evidence could alone indicate that there is an opportunity to draw adverse inferences from the defendant´s silence. There is in addition to the principle of free evaluation of evidence also a rule in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure that explicitly supports this.
These rules enable the use of a so-called burden of explanation , which means that the failure to provide a plausible explanation of a certain circumstance is used as evidence against the defendant.
However, the burden of explanation is problematic from the point of view of legal certainty and its compatibility with the presumption of innocence has been questioned in juridical doctrine. The main part of this criticism refers to the fact that the defendant might feel forced to provide an explanation if the court is able to draw inferences from their silence, and that the burden of ex-planation might be easing the prosecutions requirement to bear the onus of providing the allegations against him. The use of a burden of explanation therefore might lead to more innocent people being convicted.
Neither the Swedish law or its legislative history contain any specific restrictions on when or to what extent it is possible to use an explanatory bur-den. Restrictions have, however, been stated in Swedish and European legal practice.
According to existing legal practice, it is not permissible to allow the silence of the accused to constitute the sole or even main basis of the evidence on which a conviction is based. On the other hand, both the Supreme Court of Sweden and the European Court of Justice have emphasized that silence, in special situations that clearly calls for an explanation, can be taken into ac-count in the evaluation of the evidence.
The actualization of the burden of explanation is thus dependent on the significance of the evidence presented against the defendant. The European Court of Justice has also stated that silence may only be used as evidence of the defendant's guilt in situations where it is the only common-sense conclusion and all possible exculpating reasons have been excluded.
Due to uncertainties regarding how the European Court of Justice's requirements on the weight of the evidence presented against the defendant, as well as how the requirement on the common-sense conclusion, are interpreted, it is not possible to say with certainty when the burden of explanation actually arises. It is certain, however, that the burden of explanation must be applied very restrictively in order not to be in conflict with the presumption of innocence.}},
  author       = {{Rosenberg, Erik}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Förklara dig för att försvara dig - En studie av förklaringsbördans förhållande till oskyldighetspresumtionen}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}