Nödvärn mot flera angripare - Om hur rätten till nödvärn ser ut i förhållande till flera angripare som agerar i medgärningsmannaskap.
(2023) LAGF03 20232Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsen behandlar frågan om hur nödvärnsrätten tillämpas mot flera angri-pare, särskilt när dessa agerar i medgärningsmannaskap. Brottsbalkens 24 kapitel stadgar rätten till självförsvar vid brottsliga angrepp på person eller egendom, förutsatt att agerandet inte är uppenbart oförsvarligt. Eftersom för-arbetena till brottsbalken endast behandlar rätten till nödvärn med utgångs-punkt från angriparen som en person, uppstår frågan vad som gäller när an-griparna är flera. Dessutom väcks frågan om dagens nödvärnsreglering är förenlig med den angripnes intressen.
I uppsatsen belyses att nödvärn innebär en avvägning mellan motstående in-tressen. Å ena sidan står den angripnes intresse av rätten till liv, säkerhet och hälsa, medan å andra... (More) - Uppsatsen behandlar frågan om hur nödvärnsrätten tillämpas mot flera angri-pare, särskilt när dessa agerar i medgärningsmannaskap. Brottsbalkens 24 kapitel stadgar rätten till självförsvar vid brottsliga angrepp på person eller egendom, förutsatt att agerandet inte är uppenbart oförsvarligt. Eftersom för-arbetena till brottsbalken endast behandlar rätten till nödvärn med utgångs-punkt från angriparen som en person, uppstår frågan vad som gäller när an-griparna är flera. Dessutom väcks frågan om dagens nödvärnsreglering är förenlig med den angripnes intressen.
I uppsatsen belyses att nödvärn innebär en avvägning mellan motstående in-tressen. Å ena sidan står den angripnes intresse av rätten till liv, säkerhet och hälsa, medan å andra sidan står angriparnas intresse av att inte utsättas för mer våld än nödvändigt. Inom litteraturen finns delade meningar om tillämpningen av nödvärnsrätten vid brottsliga angrepp utförda i medgärningsmannaskap. Som utgångspunkt bedöms nödvärnsrätten utifrån angriparnas individuella handlingar, vilket ställer höga krav på den angripne att agera rationellt i en pressad situation. En alternativ lösning är att betrakta det brottsliga angreppet som en gemensam gärning begången i medgärningsmannaskap.
Uppsatsen klargör att det endast finns ett avgörande från Högsta domstolen som explicit behandlar frågan om nödvärn mot flera angripare agerande i medgärningsmannaskap, nämligen NJA 1995 s. 661. I detta fall beslutade Högsta domstolen att separera nödvärnsrätten baserat på angriparnas indivi-duella handlingar. Trots att angriparna dömdes för rånförsök i medgärnings-mannaskap hade den angripne endast nödvärnsrätt mot en av rånarna.
Avgörandet diskuteras närmare i uppsatsens analys. Där ifrågasätts det om NJA 1995 s. 661 ska vara vägledande i samtliga nödvärnssituationer. Kritik riktas mot att betrakta detta avgörande som en huvudregel, då prejudikatet riskerar att inte tillgodose den angripnes intressen i nödvärnssituationer där angriparna är flera och agerar i medgärningsmannaskap. (Less) - Abstract
- The following paper addresses the question of how the right to self-defense is applied against multiple attackers, especially when they act in concert. Chapter 24 of the Swedish Criminal Code stipulates the right to self-defense in case of criminal attacks on persons or property, provided that the action is not clearly unjustifiable. Since the preparatory work for the Swedish Criminal Code only consider the right to self-defense from the perspective of an individual attack-er, the question arises as to what applies when there are several attackers. It also raises the question of whether the current regulation of self-defense is compatible with the interests of the attacked person.
The paper illustrates that self-defense involves a... (More) - The following paper addresses the question of how the right to self-defense is applied against multiple attackers, especially when they act in concert. Chapter 24 of the Swedish Criminal Code stipulates the right to self-defense in case of criminal attacks on persons or property, provided that the action is not clearly unjustifiable. Since the preparatory work for the Swedish Criminal Code only consider the right to self-defense from the perspective of an individual attack-er, the question arises as to what applies when there are several attackers. It also raises the question of whether the current regulation of self-defense is compatible with the interests of the attacked person.
The paper illustrates that self-defense involves a balance between opposing interests. On the one hand, there is the attacked person’s interest in the right to life, safety, and health, while on the other hand there is the attackers’ interest in not being subjected to more violence than necessary. In the literature, there are divergent opinions on the application of the right to self-defense in cases of criminal attacks carried out by accomplices. As a starting point, the right to self-defense is assessed on the basis of the individual actions of the attackers, placing high demands on the attacked party to act rationally in a pressured situation. An alternative solution is to consider the criminal attack as a collec-tive act committed in concert.
The paper clarifies that there is only one ruling from the Supreme Court ex-plicitly addressing the issue of self-defense against multiple attackers acting in concert, namely NJA 1995 s. 661. In this case, the Supreme Court decided to separate the right to self-defense based on the individual actions of the attack-ers. Although the attackers were convicted of attempted robbery in concert, the victim had the right to self-defense only against one of the robbers.
The ruling is further discussed in the paper’s analysis. There it is questioned whether NJA 1995 s. 661 should be indicative in all self-defense situations. Criticism is directed at considering this ruling as a general rule, as the prece-dent risks not satisfying the interests of the attacked party in self-defense situ-ations involving multiple attackers acting in concert. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9143497
- author
- Romare, Matteus LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, nödvärn, medgärningsmannaskap
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9143497
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-02 12:27:38
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 12:27:38
@misc{9143497,
abstract = {{The following paper addresses the question of how the right to self-defense is applied against multiple attackers, especially when they act in concert. Chapter 24 of the Swedish Criminal Code stipulates the right to self-defense in case of criminal attacks on persons or property, provided that the action is not clearly unjustifiable. Since the preparatory work for the Swedish Criminal Code only consider the right to self-defense from the perspective of an individual attack-er, the question arises as to what applies when there are several attackers. It also raises the question of whether the current regulation of self-defense is compatible with the interests of the attacked person.
The paper illustrates that self-defense involves a balance between opposing interests. On the one hand, there is the attacked person’s interest in the right to life, safety, and health, while on the other hand there is the attackers’ interest in not being subjected to more violence than necessary. In the literature, there are divergent opinions on the application of the right to self-defense in cases of criminal attacks carried out by accomplices. As a starting point, the right to self-defense is assessed on the basis of the individual actions of the attackers, placing high demands on the attacked party to act rationally in a pressured situation. An alternative solution is to consider the criminal attack as a collec-tive act committed in concert.
The paper clarifies that there is only one ruling from the Supreme Court ex-plicitly addressing the issue of self-defense against multiple attackers acting in concert, namely NJA 1995 s. 661. In this case, the Supreme Court decided to separate the right to self-defense based on the individual actions of the attack-ers. Although the attackers were convicted of attempted robbery in concert, the victim had the right to self-defense only against one of the robbers.
The ruling is further discussed in the paper’s analysis. There it is questioned whether NJA 1995 s. 661 should be indicative in all self-defense situations. Criticism is directed at considering this ruling as a general rule, as the prece-dent risks not satisfying the interests of the attacked party in self-defense situ-ations involving multiple attackers acting in concert.}},
author = {{Romare, Matteus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Nödvärn mot flera angripare - Om hur rätten till nödvärn ser ut i förhållande till flera angripare som agerar i medgärningsmannaskap.}},
year = {{2023}},
}