Advanced

Räcker en trovärdig berättelse? En granskning av förhållandet mellan målsägandens trovärdighet och den övriga bevisningen i våldtäktsmål

Sundeborn Eriksson, Linn LU (2012) JURK01 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I våldtäktsmål utgör ofta målsägandens berättelse en stor del av bevisningen eftersom bevisning i den här typen av mål kan vara svår att få fram. Därmed blir målsägandens trovärdighet av stor betydelse för utgången i målet. Redan i NJA 1980 s. 225 slog Högsta domstolen (HD) fast att det för än fällande dom inte räcker att målsäganden är mer trovärdig än den tilltalade. Efter detta mål har praxis utvecklats på så sätt att den har preciserat vad som krävs utöver en trovärdig historia för att ett åtal ska leda till en fällande dom.
Avgörandet i NJA 1991 s. 83 blev trots HD:s tidigare uttalande fällande trots att rätten i domskälen hänvisade till målsägandens trovärdighet. Preciseringen av detta avgörande kom 2005. HD frikände i NJA 2005 s.... (More)
I våldtäktsmål utgör ofta målsägandens berättelse en stor del av bevisningen eftersom bevisning i den här typen av mål kan vara svår att få fram. Därmed blir målsägandens trovärdighet av stor betydelse för utgången i målet. Redan i NJA 1980 s. 225 slog Högsta domstolen (HD) fast att det för än fällande dom inte räcker att målsäganden är mer trovärdig än den tilltalade. Efter detta mål har praxis utvecklats på så sätt att den har preciserat vad som krävs utöver en trovärdig historia för att ett åtal ska leda till en fällande dom.
Avgörandet i NJA 1991 s. 83 blev trots HD:s tidigare uttalande fällande trots att rätten i domskälen hänvisade till målsägandens trovärdighet. Preciseringen av detta avgörande kom 2005. HD frikände i NJA 2005 s. 712 med motiveringen att det till skillnad från 1991-års fall saknades stödbevisning. Utöver en trovärdig berättelse så krävs alltså stödbevisning. Detta i alla fall som huvudregel.
Även om det vanliga i den här typen av mål är att det finns lite bevisning så händer det att det finns teknisk bevisning. Teknisk bevisning värderas ofta högt och även det faktum att teknisk bevisning saknas värderas högt. I två avgöranden, NJA 1996 s. 176 och NJA 2009 s. 447 I och II, tydliggörs detta. I båda fallen förelåg förhållanden som enligt övrig praxis skulle ha kunnat lett till fällande domar. Med det menar jag att målsäganden ansågs trovärdig och stödbevisning förelåg. Existensen och avsaknaden av teknisk bevisning i form av DNA skapade i fallen ett tvivel som den övriga bevisningen inte kunde undanröja och utfallet blev i båda målen friande.
NJA 2009 s. 447 I och II är även vägvisande i de fall där stödbevisning finns åt båda håll. I dessa fall ställs höga krav på den inledande undersökningen och kan inte den bevisning som talar för den tilltalade bortses ifrån så ska utgången bli friande.
Svensk praxis säger därför att det för en fällande dom krävs en trovärdig berättelse ifrån målsäganden och att denna som huvudregel dessutom ska kunna stödjas av det som kallas stödbevisning. Praxis säger även att teknisk bevisning värderas högt och sådan bevisning kan undanröja även en trovärdig berättelse som stöds av övrig bevisning.
Efter att ha studerat ett antal underrättsdomars domskäl anser jag att denna praxis även följs i rättstillämpningen. I alla fällande domar hänvisar domstolen i sina domskäl till just målsägandens trovärdighet och att hennes berättelse stöds av den övriga bevisningen. Gällande de friande domarna så har omständigheterna varit sådana att stödbevisning funnits till stöd för båda sidor. Dessa omständigheter har även i enlighet med NJA 2009 s. 447 I och II lett till friande domar. (Less)
Abstract
In rape cases, the victim’s story often represents a crucial part of the evidence, since it can be difficult to produce other types of evidence in such cases. Therefore, the victim’s credibility is of great significance for the outcome of a case. Already in NJA 1980 p. 225, the Supreme Court (HD) stated that in order to accomplish a conviction it is not sufficient for a victim to be more credible than the accused. After this case, praxis has evolved to the demands, which besides a credible story are necessary for a prosecution to lead to a conviction.
Regardless of HD’s previous statement, NJA 1991 p. 83 is an accomplished conviction in which the court referred to the victim’s credibility. A specification of this judgement came in 2005.... (More)
In rape cases, the victim’s story often represents a crucial part of the evidence, since it can be difficult to produce other types of evidence in such cases. Therefore, the victim’s credibility is of great significance for the outcome of a case. Already in NJA 1980 p. 225, the Supreme Court (HD) stated that in order to accomplish a conviction it is not sufficient for a victim to be more credible than the accused. After this case, praxis has evolved to the demands, which besides a credible story are necessary for a prosecution to lead to a conviction.
Regardless of HD’s previous statement, NJA 1991 p. 83 is an accomplished conviction in which the court referred to the victim’s credibility. A specification of this judgement came in 2005. HD acquitted the accused in NJA 2005 p. 712 with the motivation that unlike the case in 1991, this case did not have sufficient supporting evidence. In addition to a credible story, supporting evidence is required in order for a conviction to be accomplished. This demand is a principal rule.
Even though this type of case usually does not contain much evidence, technical evidence does occur. Technical evidence is often of high value and even lack of technical evidence is in fact highly valued. This is clarified in two judgements, NJA 1996 p. 176 and NJA 2009 p. 447 I and II. In both cases, the existing circumstances could have led to convictions according to praxis. With this, I mean to say that the victim was credible and that there was supporting evidence. The existence and the non-existence of technical evidence in the form of DNA created in these two cases a doubt that remaining evidence could not remove. In both cases this led to an acquittal.
NJA 2009 p. 447 I and II is also guiding in cases where there is supporting evidence on both sides. In these cases, there is a high demand on the initial investigation, and if the evidence supporting the accused cannot be disregarded the outcome must be an acquittal.
Hence, Swedish praxis states that in case of a conviction the victim must provide a credible story, and as a principal rule supporting evidence must support this story. Praxis also states that technical evidence is of high value and that such evidence can eliminate a credible story, which is supported by supporting evidence.
After having studied a number of lower court judgments, I believe that this praxis is followed in the application of the law. All convictions studied for this essay refer to the victim’s credibility and the fact that supporting evidence confirms her story. Regarding the acquitting judgements studied for this essay, there has been supporting evidence in favour of both sides. In accordance with NJA 2009 p. 447 I and II, these circumstances have led to acquittal. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sundeborn Eriksson, Linn LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURK01 20121
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Criminal Law
language
Swedish
id
2798310
date added to LUP
2013-05-22 15:43:08
date last changed
2013-05-22 15:43:08
@misc{2798310,
  abstract     = {In rape cases, the victim’s story often represents a crucial part of the evidence, since it can be difficult to produce other types of evidence in such cases. Therefore, the victim’s credibility is of great significance for the outcome of a case. Already in NJA 1980 p. 225, the Supreme Court (HD) stated that in order to accomplish a conviction it is not sufficient for a victim to be more credible than the accused. After this case, praxis has evolved to the demands, which besides a credible story are necessary for a prosecution to lead to a conviction. 
Regardless of HD’s previous statement, NJA 1991 p. 83 is an accomplished conviction in which the court referred to the victim’s credibility. A specification of this judgement came in 2005. HD acquitted the accused in NJA 2005 p. 712 with the motivation that unlike the case in 1991, this case did not have sufficient supporting evidence. In addition to a credible story, supporting evidence is required in order for a conviction to be accomplished. This demand is a principal rule.
Even though this type of case usually does not contain much evidence, technical evidence does occur. Technical evidence is often of high value and even lack of technical evidence is in fact highly valued. This is clarified in two judgements, NJA 1996 p. 176 and NJA 2009 p. 447 I and II. In both cases, the existing circumstances could have led to convictions according to praxis. With this, I mean to say that the victim was credible and that there was supporting evidence. The existence and the non-existence of technical evidence in the form of DNA created in these two cases a doubt that remaining evidence could not remove. In both cases this led to an acquittal.
NJA 2009 p. 447 I and II is also guiding in cases where there is supporting evidence on both sides. In these cases, there is a high demand on the initial investigation, and if the evidence supporting the accused cannot be disregarded the outcome must be an acquittal.
Hence, Swedish praxis states that in case of a conviction the victim must provide a credible story, and as a principal rule supporting evidence must support this story. Praxis also states that technical evidence is of high value and that such evidence can eliminate a credible story, which is supported by supporting evidence.
After having studied a number of lower court judgments, I believe that this praxis is followed in the application of the law. All convictions studied for this essay refer to the victim’s credibility and the fact that supporting evidence confirms her story. Regarding the acquitting judgements studied for this essay, there has been supporting evidence in favour of both sides. In accordance with NJA 2009 p. 447 I and II, these circumstances have led to acquittal.},
  author       = {Sundeborn Eriksson, Linn},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,Criminal Law},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Räcker en trovärdig berättelse? En granskning av förhållandet mellan målsägandens trovärdighet och den övriga bevisningen i våldtäktsmål},
  year         = {2012},
}