Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Aberratio ictus - Anstiftarens ansvar vid den anstiftade gärningsmannens error in persona

Rexhaj, Eduland LU (2022) LAGF03 20221
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The phenomenon known as aberratio ictus has long been a point of discussion in criminal law. A commonly used illustration of the phenomenon is when person A tries to murder person B, but accidentally deprives the life of person C. The question that arises from this scenario is how to judge A’s responsibility? As of writing this, there is no case law from the Supreme Court regarding how to solve this issue. Furthermore, the legal doctrine does not present a unanimous solution to this problem. On one hand, there are those who advocate the method called “specialitetsmodellen.” This method states that the perpetrator should be held responsible in accordance with their specific intent. As a result, A would be convicted of attempted murder in... (More)
The phenomenon known as aberratio ictus has long been a point of discussion in criminal law. A commonly used illustration of the phenomenon is when person A tries to murder person B, but accidentally deprives the life of person C. The question that arises from this scenario is how to judge A’s responsibility? As of writing this, there is no case law from the Supreme Court regarding how to solve this issue. Furthermore, the legal doctrine does not present a unanimous solution to this problem. On one hand, there are those who advocate the method called “specialitetsmodellen.” This method states that the perpetrator should be held responsible in accordance with their specific intent. As a result, A would be convicted of attempted murder in relation to B and negligent homicide regarding C. On the other hand, there are those who champion the method called “ekvivalensmodellen.” According to this method, the perpetrator’s specific intent is not of importance. What is important is that their intent is in correlation with the prerequisites of the offence, which are written in general terms. Applied on the mentioned illustration, A would be convicted of the murder of C. The reason for this being is that both B and C, based on the perspective of the criminal law, are equal objects.

Recently, the interest in aberratio ictus has been renewed due to a recent case by the Court of Appeal. An individual was convicted of incitement to murder, even though the perpetrators, who had been incited, had accidentally killed the wrong person. While the district court deemed the situation to be a case of aberratio ictus, the Court of Appeal did not. Since then, the Supreme Court has granted the certiorari on how the instigator’s responsibility should be judged.

The purpose of this thesis is to conclude which method should be used to solve cases of aberratio ictus, and if the case of the instigator should be treated as such. An analysis of existing law leads to the conclusions that “specialitetsmodellen” is preferable over “ekvivalensmodellen,” and that the case of the instigator should be treated as a case of aberratio ictus. Consequently, the accused should not be convicted of incitement to murder. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Fenomenet aberratio ictus har länge varit föremål för diskussioner inom straffrätten. Ett vanligt förekommande exempel på fenomenet är när personen A försöker mörda personen B, men av misstag berövar livet på personen C. Detta väcker frågan avseende hur A:s ansvar ska bedömas? I skrivande stund finns inget vägledande avgörande från HD gällande hur problematiken ska hanteras. Inte heller är doktrinen enig om hur situationen ska behandlas. Å ena sidan finns förespråkare för den så kallade specialitetsmodellen. Enligt specialitetsmodellen ska gärningsmannens ansvar bedömas utifrån dennes specifika uppsåt. I mordexemplet hade modellen inneburit att A hade dömts för försök till mord i förhållande till B och vållande till annans död i... (More)
Fenomenet aberratio ictus har länge varit föremål för diskussioner inom straffrätten. Ett vanligt förekommande exempel på fenomenet är när personen A försöker mörda personen B, men av misstag berövar livet på personen C. Detta väcker frågan avseende hur A:s ansvar ska bedömas? I skrivande stund finns inget vägledande avgörande från HD gällande hur problematiken ska hanteras. Inte heller är doktrinen enig om hur situationen ska behandlas. Å ena sidan finns förespråkare för den så kallade specialitetsmodellen. Enligt specialitetsmodellen ska gärningsmannens ansvar bedömas utifrån dennes specifika uppsåt. I mordexemplet hade modellen inneburit att A hade dömts för försök till mord i förhållande till B och vållande till annans död i förhållande till C. Å andra sidan finns det de som menar att ekvivalensmodellen ska tillämpas. Enligt ekvivalensmodellen är det inte gärningsmannens specifika uppsåt som är det avgörande. I stället ska hänsyn tas till gärningsmannens uppsåt i relation till rekvisiten i den aktuella brottsbestämmelsen som är skriven i generella termer. Detta skulle innebära att A hade dömts för mord i förhållande till C eftersom B och C är straffrättsligt likvärdiga objekt.

I samband med ett nytt hovrättsavgörande har intresset för aberratio ictus-problematiken förnyats. I fallet har den tilltalade blivit dömd för anstiftan av mord, trots att de anstiftade gärningsmännen av misstag har mördat fel person. Enligt tingsrätten utgjorde målet ett fall av aberratio ictus, vilket hovrätten inte höll med om. Sedan dess har HD beviljat prövningstillstånd avseende rättsfrågan om hur en anstiftares ansvar ska bedömas.

Uppsatsen har till syfte att avgöra vilken lösningsmodell som bör användas för att lösa fall av aberratio ictus och undersöka om anstiftan-fallet utgör ett sådant fall. En analys av gällande rätt har lett till slutsatserna att specialitetsmodellen är att föredra över ekvivalensmodellen och att anstiftan-fallet utgör ett aberratio ictus-fall. Av den anledningen ska den tilltalade inte dömas för anstiftan av mord. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rexhaj, Eduland LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20221
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Aberratio ictus, Error in persona, Anstiftan
language
Swedish
id
9080910
date added to LUP
2022-06-28 11:14:48
date last changed
2022-06-28 11:14:48
@misc{9080910,
  abstract     = {{The phenomenon known as aberratio ictus has long been a point of discussion in criminal law. A commonly used illustration of the phenomenon is when person A tries to murder person B, but accidentally deprives the life of person C. The question that arises from this scenario is how to judge A’s responsibility? As of writing this, there is no case law from the Supreme Court regarding how to solve this issue. Furthermore, the legal doctrine does not present a unanimous solution to this problem. On one hand, there are those who advocate the method called “specialitetsmodellen.” This method states that the perpetrator should be held responsible in accordance with their specific intent. As a result, A would be convicted of attempted murder in relation to B and negligent homicide regarding C. On the other hand, there are those who champion the method called “ekvivalensmodellen.” According to this method, the perpetrator’s specific intent is not of importance. What is important is that their intent is in correlation with the prerequisites of the offence, which are written in general terms. Applied on the mentioned illustration, A would be convicted of the murder of C. The reason for this being is that both B and C, based on the perspective of the criminal law, are equal objects.

Recently, the interest in aberratio ictus has been renewed due to a recent case by the Court of Appeal. An individual was convicted of incitement to murder, even though the perpetrators, who had been incited, had accidentally killed the wrong person. While the district court deemed the situation to be a case of aberratio ictus, the Court of Appeal did not. Since then, the Supreme Court has granted the certiorari on how the instigator’s responsibility should be judged.

The purpose of this thesis is to conclude which method should be used to solve cases of aberratio ictus, and if the case of the instigator should be treated as such. An analysis of existing law leads to the conclusions that “specialitetsmodellen” is preferable over “ekvivalensmodellen,” and that the case of the instigator should be treated as a case of aberratio ictus. Consequently, the accused should not be convicted of incitement to murder.}},
  author       = {{Rexhaj, Eduland}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Aberratio ictus - Anstiftarens ansvar vid den anstiftade gärningsmannens error in persona}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}