Advanced

En muntlig utsaga - ett halvt bevis. En kritisk granskning av stödbevisningens betydelse för den muntliga utsagans framgång i brottmålsprocessen

Sakko, Andreas LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning
I Sverige råder fri bevisprövning med fri bevisvärdering. Det innebär att inga formella regler uppställs för hur ett bevis ska värderas eller vilka metoder som ska tillämpas av domstolen vid bevisvärderingen. Således är det teoretiskt möjligt att vid en ord mot ord situation finna det ställt utom rimligt tvivel att den tilltalade gjort som åklagaren gör gällande. Trots detta är det mycket sällan åklagarna väcker åtal utan att en omfattande bevisning finns som stöd för utsagans tillförlitlighet. Detta gäller i synnerhet vid brott som sexuella övergrepp och mer precist våldtäkt.
Det faktum att målsägandens utsaga i princip aldrig ensamt anses fullt tillförlitlig har lett till den frågeställning som varit styrande för denna... (More)
Sammanfattning
I Sverige råder fri bevisprövning med fri bevisvärdering. Det innebär att inga formella regler uppställs för hur ett bevis ska värderas eller vilka metoder som ska tillämpas av domstolen vid bevisvärderingen. Således är det teoretiskt möjligt att vid en ord mot ord situation finna det ställt utom rimligt tvivel att den tilltalade gjort som åklagaren gör gällande. Trots detta är det mycket sällan åklagarna väcker åtal utan att en omfattande bevisning finns som stöd för utsagans tillförlitlighet. Detta gäller i synnerhet vid brott som sexuella övergrepp och mer precist våldtäkt.
Det faktum att målsägandens utsaga i princip aldrig ensamt anses fullt tillförlitlig har lett till den frågeställning som varit styrande för denna uppsats: Hur ser praxis ut idag angående stödbevisning vid utsagomål och hur förhåller sig underrätterna till denna praxis i deras rättstillämpning? Frågeställningen har fört tankarna vidare till frågan om det idag uppställs ett krav på stödbevisning i praxis? Och till frågan om det kan skönjas någon bevishierarki, dvs. är det något stödbevis som tenderar att åberopas oftare än ett annat och finns det något stödbevis som tenderar att stärka målsägandens utsaga bättre än ett annat bevis? Men även till frågan om hur HovR förhåller sig i värderingen av målsägandens muntliga utsaga till förekommande stödbevis och praxis avseende bevisvärdering.
Min slutsats är att HD:s praxis har medfört att stödbevisning idag i princip är ett krav för att fällande dom ska kunna meddelas i en ord mot ord situation vid ett sexuellt övergrepp. Vidare är denna praxis något som underrätterna anpassat sig till. Det stödbevis som står högst i hierarkin, oftast är förekommande och som därmed oftast kompenserar den inte helt tillförlitliga utsagan är ett närstående vittne med en andrahandsutsaga.
Den övergripande frågeställningen med dess underfrågor har besvarats dels genom en kvalitativ innehållsanalys av de ledande NJA-fallen på bevisrättens område. Metoden tillämpas genom att citat ur praxis tagits fasta på. Citat som sedan analyserats ensamt men även jämförts sinsemellan över tiden för att fastställa en tendens i HD:s sätt att formulera sig i domskälen, detta avseende bevisvärdering och formuleringen kring hur beviskravet uppfylls. Men även har den traditionella juridiska metoden tillämpats där gällande rätt har utretts och där domstolens process vid bevisvärderingen i brottmål och i synnerhet vid värderingen av den muntliga utsagan utretts. Vidare har tillförlitlighet men även trovärdighet, åklagarens bevisbörda och gällande beviskrav redogjorts för då detta har stor betydelse för bevisprövningen.
Även har det redogjorts för de mest frekvent förekommande stödbevisen i praxis för att utröna om någon bevishierarki kan skönjas. Dessa stödbevis är vittnen med en andrahandsutsaga, sakkunniga, tekniskbevisning i form av DNA och medicinsk dokumentation. Vidare har tio HovR-avgöranden granskats och därmed fått utgöra nedslag i verkligheten, detta i avseende att utröna hur HovR förhållit sig i sin värdering av målsägandens utsaga till förekommande stödbevis och praxis avseende bevisvärdering. (Less)
Abstract
Summary
In Sweden there is a free sifting of evidence with a free evaluation of evidence. This means that no formal rules are imposed on how evidence should be valued or the methods to be applied by the court at the evaluation of evidence. It is theoretically possible to find it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made as the prosecutor alleges in a situation where one word stands against another. Nonetheless, it is very rarely prosecutors bring charges without comprehensive evidence available to support the dictums reliability. This is especially true for crimes such as sexual assault and more specifically cases of rape.
The fact that the plaintiff dictum in principle, never alone considered fully reliable have led to the question... (More)
Summary
In Sweden there is a free sifting of evidence with a free evaluation of evidence. This means that no formal rules are imposed on how evidence should be valued or the methods to be applied by the court at the evaluation of evidence. It is theoretically possible to find it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made as the prosecutor alleges in a situation where one word stands against another. Nonetheless, it is very rarely prosecutors bring charges without comprehensive evidence available to support the dictums reliability. This is especially true for crimes such as sexual assault and more specifically cases of rape.
The fact that the plaintiff dictum in principle, never alone considered fully reliable have led to the question formulation that has been leading for this essay: What is the case law today regarding supporting evidence at cases of dictum and how does the lower criminal courts react to this case law in their application of the law? The question formulation has brought my thoughts onto other questions, like whether there is today a requirement to support evidence in case law? And to the question whether it can be seen any evidence hierarchy, ie. is there any basis of supporting evidence which tends to be invoked more often than another, and is there any basis of supporting evidence which tends to support the plaintiff dictum better than any other evidence?
My conclusion is that Supreme Court´s case law has today entailed in a situation where the supporting evidence is basically a requirement for a conviction to be given when one word stands against another at a sexual assault. Furthermore, this case law is something that lower criminal courts have adapted to. The supporting evidence which is at the top in the hierarchy, usually is existent and has thus often compensates for the somewhat unreliable dictum is a related witness with a secondary dictum.
The question formulation with its further questions has been answered partly through a qualitative content analysis of the leading NJA-cases on evidence law. Quotes from case law has been fixed on, quotes which has been analyzed exclusively but also compared with each other over time to determine a tendency in the Supreme Court way of expressing oneself in case law regarding the evaluation of evidence and formulation of how evidence requirement is met. The traditional legal method has also been applied where the law has been investigated and where the Court processes in the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases and in particular where the valuation of the oral dictum has been investigated. Also it has been described the most frequent supporting evidence in the already described case law to determine whether any evidence hierarchy can be discerned. These support evidence is witness with a secondary dictum, expert witnesses, forensic evidence in the form of DNA and medical records. Furthermore, ten Court of Appeals rulings have been studied, only to look at how the Court of Appeals have interpreted case law regarding evaluation of evidence and how they have applied this case law in their own evaluation of plaintiffs oral dictum. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sakko, Andreas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
One dictum - a half of evidence. A critical study of the importance of supporting evidences for the dictums success in criminal proceedings
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
stödbevis, stödbevisning, muntlig utsaga, bevisvärdering, fri bevisvärdering, bevisprövning, fri bevisprövning, crmiminal law
language
Swedish
additional info
andreas_sakko@live.se

0702543419

811206-8971
id
2655245
date added to LUP
2012-08-31 15:50:20
date last changed
2012-08-31 15:50:20
@misc{2655245,
  abstract     = {Summary
In Sweden there is a free sifting of evidence with a free evaluation of evidence. This means that no formal rules are imposed on how evidence should be valued or the methods to be applied by the court at the evaluation of evidence. It is theoretically possible to find it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made as the prosecutor alleges in a situation where one word stands against another. Nonetheless, it is very rarely prosecutors bring charges without comprehensive evidence available to support the dictums reliability. This is especially true for crimes such as sexual assault and more specifically cases of rape.
The fact that the plaintiff dictum in principle, never alone considered fully reliable have led to the question formulation that has been leading for this essay: What is the case law today regarding supporting evidence at cases of dictum and how does the lower criminal courts react to this case law in their application of the law? The question formulation has brought my thoughts onto other questions, like whether there is today a requirement to support evidence in case law? And to the question whether it can be seen any evidence hierarchy, ie. is there any basis of supporting evidence which tends to be invoked more often than another, and is there any basis of supporting evidence which tends to support the plaintiff dictum better than any other evidence?
My conclusion is that Supreme Court´s case law has today entailed in a situation where the supporting evidence is basically a requirement for a conviction to be given when one word stands against another at a sexual assault. Furthermore, this case law is something that lower criminal courts have adapted to. The supporting evidence which is at the top in the hierarchy, usually is existent and has thus often compensates for the somewhat unreliable dictum is a related witness with a secondary dictum.
The question formulation with its further questions has been answered partly through a qualitative content analysis of the leading NJA-cases on evidence law. Quotes from case law has been fixed on, quotes which has been analyzed exclusively but also compared with each other over time to determine a tendency in the Supreme Court way of expressing oneself in case law regarding the evaluation of evidence and formulation of how evidence requirement is met. The traditional legal method has also been applied where the law has been investigated and where the Court processes in the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases and in particular where the valuation of the oral dictum has been investigated. Also it has been described the most frequent supporting evidence in the already described case law to determine whether any evidence hierarchy can be discerned. These support evidence is witness with a secondary dictum, expert witnesses, forensic evidence in the form of DNA and medical records. Furthermore, ten Court of Appeals rulings have been studied, only to look at how the Court of Appeals have interpreted case law regarding evaluation of evidence and how they have applied this case law in their own evaluation of plaintiffs oral dictum.},
  author       = {Sakko, Andreas},
  keyword      = {stödbevis,stödbevisning,muntlig utsaga,bevisvärdering,fri bevisvärdering,bevisprövning,fri bevisprövning,crmiminal law},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En muntlig utsaga - ett halvt bevis. En kritisk granskning av stödbevisningens betydelse för den muntliga utsagans framgång i brottmålsprocessen},
  year         = {2012},
}