Advanced

Straffrättslig nödrätt - Försvarlighetsbedömningen i 24 kap. 4 § BrB

Sandberg, Ulrika LU (2012) JURM02 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ansvarsfrihetsgrunden nöd finns i 24 kap. 4 § BrB. Paragrafen blir tillämplig då fara hotar liv, hälsa, egendom eller något annat viktigt av rättsordningen skyddat intresse. Gärning som begås i en nödsituation utgör brott enbart om den med hänsyn till farans beskaffenhet, den skada som åsamkas annan och omständigheterna i övrigt är oförsvarlig. Uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka denna försvarlighetsbedömning och granska vilka faktorer som domstolarna har tagit fasta på vid avvägningen.

Sammanfattningsvis kan sägas att faktorer som generellt väger tungt vid intresseavvägningen är den tilltalades sinnestillstånd, vilka andra alternativ som stod till buds och hur akut faran var. Det finns emellertid även förhållanden som har varierande... (More)
Ansvarsfrihetsgrunden nöd finns i 24 kap. 4 § BrB. Paragrafen blir tillämplig då fara hotar liv, hälsa, egendom eller något annat viktigt av rättsordningen skyddat intresse. Gärning som begås i en nödsituation utgör brott enbart om den med hänsyn till farans beskaffenhet, den skada som åsamkas annan och omständigheterna i övrigt är oförsvarlig. Uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka denna försvarlighetsbedömning och granska vilka faktorer som domstolarna har tagit fasta på vid avvägningen.

Sammanfattningsvis kan sägas att faktorer som generellt väger tungt vid intresseavvägningen är den tilltalades sinnestillstånd, vilka andra alternativ som stod till buds och hur akut faran var. Det finns emellertid även förhållanden som har varierande betydelse beroende på typ av brott.

Trafikbrott är kanske de mest typiska nödrättsbrotten. Speciellt vad gäller rattfylla blir avvägningarna ofta intressanta, då det starka, men något abstrakta, trafiksäkerhetsintresset står emot varierande intressen på andra sidan. Domstolarna tar här, förutom de ovan nämnda faktorerna, fasta på vitt skilda saker i försvarlighetsbedömningen. Det som har nämnts är exempelvis väglag, väder, berusningsgrad, vägens bredd och omgivningen runt den samt huruvida färden slutade i en trafikolycka.

Även brott då anfallande djur dödas är mycket vanliga. Eftersom faran här ofta kommer från samma objekt som offras får dessa fall ibland karaktären av nödvärnsfall. Därmed verkar utrymmet för att frias på grund av nöd bli något större. Uppsatsen ger också exempel på andra fall där nödparagrafen blir aktuell, exempelvis miljö- eller narkotikabrott.

Uppsatsen tar också upp nödfall inom två speciella områden: polisväsendet och hälsovården. Många av de intressen som här står på spel, till exempel intresset av att upprätthålla samhällets förtroende eller sjukvårdsetiken, gör att dessa fall bedöms något annorlunda. Inom sjukvården är resonemang om samtycke mycket vanligt, och hypotetiskt samtycke tycks kunna inverka på försvarlighetsbedömningen i kombination med andra faktorer.

Det har hävdats i doktrin att eftersom nödbestämmelsen idag är av väldigt generell karaktär har fokus flyttats från avgränsningen av vad som är att anse som en nödsituation till försvarlighetsbedömningen. I genomgången av praxis har detta dock inte visat sig särskilt tydligt, och det verkar dessutom som att domstolarna inte alltid håller isär dessa två bedömningar. Antalet rättsfall med nödanknytning som kommer upp till högre rätt är begränsat, troligen delvis för att åklagarna väljer att inte åtala. För en ökad kunskap hos domstolarna och en klarare bild över hur denna paragraf ska tillämpas vore det lyckosamt om antalet fall som åtalas blir fler i framtiden. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Necessity is a justification rule in 24th chapter 4 § in the Swedish Penal Code (Sw. brottsbalken). The clause is applicable when a danger threatens life, health, property or another interest that is protected by the legal system. An act committed in an emergency is seen as a crime only if it, with regard to the nature of the danger, the damage that is caused and the other circumstances, is unjustified. The paper aims at examining this assessment of justification and review what factors the courts have taken note of in the balance.

To sum up, the factors that generally are important in the balance of interests are the state of mind of the defendant, what other alternatives were available and how urgent the danger was. However, there are... (More)
Necessity is a justification rule in 24th chapter 4 § in the Swedish Penal Code (Sw. brottsbalken). The clause is applicable when a danger threatens life, health, property or another interest that is protected by the legal system. An act committed in an emergency is seen as a crime only if it, with regard to the nature of the danger, the damage that is caused and the other circumstances, is unjustified. The paper aims at examining this assessment of justification and review what factors the courts have taken note of in the balance.

To sum up, the factors that generally are important in the balance of interests are the state of mind of the defendant, what other alternatives were available and how urgent the danger was. However, there are circumstances that have different significance depending on the kind of crime.

Crimes in traffic may be the most typical acts of necessity. Especially in crimes of drunk driving the balance is interesting, when the strong, but abstract, road safety interest is put against the varying interests on the other side. The courts take in this decision, in addition to the factors mentioned above, note of diverse matters in the assessment of justification. Examples are the state of the road, the weather, the intoxication level, the width of the road and the surroundings together with the fact if the trip ended with an accident.

Also crimes with attacking animals that are killed are very common. Since the danger often comes from the sacrificed subjects these cases sometimes have the nature of self-defence cases. Thus, it seems like it sometimes is easier to be cleared of crimes. The paper also gives examples of other cases when the clause is applicable, for instance environmental crimes and drug crimes.

Furthermore, the paper will bring attention to two special fields; necessity cases regarding the police and the health service. Many of the interests that are significant for these cases, for example the interest of maintaining the confidence of the society or the medical ethics, make these cases being judged a bit different. Within the healthcare, arguments about consent are very common and hypothetical consent seems to be having an effect of the assessment of justification in combination with other factors.

It has been said in doctrine that because the clause of necessity today is very general the focus has been moved from the demarcation of what is a case of necessity to the assessment of justification. In the review of cases thought this is not obvious, and it seems like the courts do not always separate these two assessments. The numbers of cases in higher court that are related to necessity are limited, probably partly because the prosecutors choose not to prosecute. To get a better knowledge of necessity in the courts and a clearer picture of the application of necessity it would be desirable with a bigger selection of cases in the future. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sandberg, Ulrika LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Criminal necessity law - The assessment of justification in 24th chapter 4 § in the Swedish Penal Code
course
JURM02 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt (en. criminal law), nödrätt
language
Swedish
id
2293402
date added to LUP
2012-02-16 15:29:55
date last changed
2012-02-16 15:29:55
@misc{2293402,
  abstract     = {Necessity is a justification rule in 24th chapter 4 § in the Swedish Penal Code (Sw. brottsbalken). The clause is applicable when a danger threatens life, health, property or another interest that is protected by the legal system. An act committed in an emergency is seen as a crime only if it, with regard to the nature of the danger, the damage that is caused and the other circumstances, is unjustified. The paper aims at examining this assessment of justification and review what factors the courts have taken note of in the balance.

To sum up, the factors that generally are important in the balance of interests are the state of mind of the defendant, what other alternatives were available and how urgent the danger was. However, there are circumstances that have different significance depending on the kind of crime.

Crimes in traffic may be the most typical acts of necessity. Especially in crimes of drunk driving the balance is interesting, when the strong, but abstract, road safety interest is put against the varying interests on the other side. The courts take in this decision, in addition to the factors mentioned above, note of diverse matters in the assessment of justification. Examples are the state of the road, the weather, the intoxication level, the width of the road and the surroundings together with the fact if the trip ended with an accident.

Also crimes with attacking animals that are killed are very common. Since the danger often comes from the sacrificed subjects these cases sometimes have the nature of self-defence cases. Thus, it seems like it sometimes is easier to be cleared of crimes. The paper also gives examples of other cases when the clause is applicable, for instance environmental crimes and drug crimes.

Furthermore, the paper will bring attention to two special fields; necessity cases regarding the police and the health service. Many of the interests that are significant for these cases, for example the interest of maintaining the confidence of the society or the medical ethics, make these cases being judged a bit different. Within the healthcare, arguments about consent are very common and hypothetical consent seems to be having an effect of the assessment of justification in combination with other factors.

It has been said in doctrine that because the clause of necessity today is very general the focus has been moved from the demarcation of what is a case of necessity to the assessment of justification. In the review of cases thought this is not obvious, and it seems like the courts do not always separate these two assessments. The numbers of cases in higher court that are related to necessity are limited, probably partly because the prosecutors choose not to prosecute. To get a better knowledge of necessity in the courts and a clearer picture of the application of necessity it would be desirable with a bigger selection of cases in the future.},
  author       = {Sandberg, Ulrika},
  keyword      = {straffrätt (en. criminal law),nödrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Straffrättslig nödrätt - Försvarlighetsbedömningen i 24 kap. 4 § BrB},
  year         = {2012},
}