Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Bevisprovokation och brottsprovokation- en begreppsanalys i syfte att utreda provokativa åtgärders tillåtlighet

Wir, Josefine LU (2013) LAGF03 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning

I bekämpningen av grov och organiserad brottslighet använder sig polisen i viss mån av provokativa åtgärder. Både inom polisväsendet och i den svenska rättstillämpningen görs ofta en distinktion mellan dels bevisprovokation, dels brottsprovokation. En spridd uppfattning är att bevisprovokation är tillåtet medan brottsprovokation inte är det. Varken provokativa åtgärder, bevis- eller brottsprovokation definieras eller regleras dock i lag och inget av begreppen kan sägas ha en fast juridisk innebörd. Bristen på definitioner av begreppsapparaten samt uttryckliga regler för begreppens tillämpning, distinktion och funktion leder till att provokation är ett svårhanterligt och farligt verktyg och risken för gränsdragningsproblem... (More)
Sammanfattning

I bekämpningen av grov och organiserad brottslighet använder sig polisen i viss mån av provokativa åtgärder. Både inom polisväsendet och i den svenska rättstillämpningen görs ofta en distinktion mellan dels bevisprovokation, dels brottsprovokation. En spridd uppfattning är att bevisprovokation är tillåtet medan brottsprovokation inte är det. Varken provokativa åtgärder, bevis- eller brottsprovokation definieras eller regleras dock i lag och inget av begreppen kan sägas ha en fast juridisk innebörd. Bristen på definitioner av begreppsapparaten samt uttryckliga regler för begreppens tillämpning, distinktion och funktion leder till att provokation är ett svårhanterligt och farligt verktyg och risken för gränsdragningsproblem är uppenbar.

Förevarande uppsats utgår från de båda begreppen bevisprovokation och brottsprovokation för att försöka utröna vad som är tillåtna provokativa åtgärder. Begreppen förklaras och analyseras utifrån hur de tolkats och tillämpats i svensk praxis och doktrin. Uppsatsens resultat visar att en provokations tillåtlighet inte helt enkelt kan härledas ur huruvida det rör sig om en bevisprovokation eller en brottsprovokation. Begreppen kan ge viss ledning men bedömningen måste koncentreras till hur åtgärden rent faktiskt har genomförts i det enskilda fallet. För att en provokation ska anses tillåten måste först ett visst antal principer beaktas. Principerna slogs fast i förarbetena till polislagen och anses komma till uttryck i lagens åttonde paragraf. Bland annat finns en behovsprincip, en proportionalitetsprincip samt ett krav på att det måste föreligga stark misstanke om brott. Vidare får provokationen givetvis inte innebära att Sverige handlar i strid mot Europakonventionen för de mänskliga rättigheterna. Artikel 6 och artikel 8 förhindrar allt för långtgående provokationer. Både enligt Europadomstolen och i inhemsk rätt anses det avgörande för en provokations tillåtlighet huruvida någon genom provokationen har förmåtts att begå en brottslig handling som denne annars aldrig hade begått.

För att sätta den svenska rättens sätt att hantera frågan i perspektiv görs en komparation med motsvarande reglering i engelsk rätt. I den engelska rätten görs ingen begreppsdistinktion i bevis- och brottsprovokation. Man talar om entrapment som en motsvarighet till brottsprovokation. Det finns inga klara regler på området men praxis verkar erkänna provokativa åtgärder i större utsträckning än i Sverige. Däremot får man inte heller enligt engelsk rätt provocera någon att begå ett brott som denne utan provokationen inte hade begått. (Less)
Abstract
Summary

In the fight against organised crime the police to some extent use entrapment. Both within the police and in Swedish application of the law the term of entrapment is often divided into entrapment in order to secure evidence for a crime already committed on the one hand and entrapment in order to provoke a crime on the other. A common apprehension is that entrapment in order to secure evidence is permissible whilst entrapment in order to provoke a crime is not. Neither of the terms, though, is defined or regulated by law and neither of the terms has a solid judicial construction. The lack of clear definitions and explicit regulation for the applicability, distinction and function of the terms makes entrapment a tool both... (More)
Summary

In the fight against organised crime the police to some extent use entrapment. Both within the police and in Swedish application of the law the term of entrapment is often divided into entrapment in order to secure evidence for a crime already committed on the one hand and entrapment in order to provoke a crime on the other. A common apprehension is that entrapment in order to secure evidence is permissible whilst entrapment in order to provoke a crime is not. Neither of the terms, though, is defined or regulated by law and neither of the terms has a solid judicial construction. The lack of clear definitions and explicit regulation for the applicability, distinction and function of the terms makes entrapment a tool both dangerous and difficult to use.

With the purpose to investigate what kind of entrapment is permissible, the thesis analyses the two terms: entrapment in order to prove a crime already committed and entrapment in order to provoke a crime. The terms are explained and analysed based on how they have been interpreted in Swedish custom law and doctrine. The result of the thesis shows that the permissibility of an entrapment is not directly dependent on whether it is to be derived to one term or the other. The terms do offer some guidance but the judgement however has to be focused on how the entrapment is carried through in the very special case. For an entrapment to be permissible first of all a few fundamental principles needs to be taken into consideration. The principles were established in the legislative history of the polislag and considered to be expressed in the eighth article of the law. For example there is the principle that entrapment needs to be used with proportionality. Moreover, Sweden has to make sure the entrapment does not constitute a breach to the European convention for human rights. Article 6 and 8 sets limits for to what extent entrapment can be used. Both according to the European court of human rights and in Sweden it is regarded to be crucial for the permissibility of an entrapment whether someone is provoked to commit an offence that he would not otherwise commit.

To widen the perspective a comparison is carried out between the way the question of entrapment is handled in Sweden and England. In England the distinction in types of entrapment is made in a different way. There is no clear regulation of the area but the court seems to approve entrapment in a wider extent than in Sweden. However it is not allowed to provoke someone to commit an offence that he would not otherwise commit. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wir, Josefine LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20131
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
3800604
date added to LUP
2013-09-11 14:36:34
date last changed
2013-09-11 14:36:34
@misc{3800604,
  abstract     = {Summary

In the fight against organised crime the police to some extent use entrapment. Both within the police and in Swedish application of the law the term of entrapment is often divided into entrapment in order to secure evidence for a crime already committed on the one hand and entrapment in order to provoke a crime on the other. A common apprehension is that entrapment in order to secure evidence is permissible whilst entrapment in order to provoke a crime is not. Neither of the terms, though, is defined or regulated by law and neither of the terms has a solid judicial construction. The lack of clear definitions and explicit regulation for the applicability, distinction and function of the terms makes entrapment a tool both dangerous and difficult to use.

With the purpose to investigate what kind of entrapment is permissible, the thesis analyses the two terms: entrapment in order to prove a crime already committed and entrapment in order to provoke a crime. The terms are explained and analysed based on how they have been interpreted in Swedish custom law and doctrine. The result of the thesis shows that the permissibility of an entrapment is not directly dependent on whether it is to be derived to one term or the other. The terms do offer some guidance but the judgement however has to be focused on how the entrapment is carried through in the very special case. For an entrapment to be permissible first of all a few fundamental principles needs to be taken into consideration. The principles were established in the legislative history of the polislag and considered to be expressed in the eighth article of the law. For example there is the principle that entrapment needs to be used with proportionality. Moreover, Sweden has to make sure the entrapment does not constitute a breach to the European convention for human rights. Article 6 and 8 sets limits for to what extent entrapment can be used. Both according to the European court of human rights and in Sweden it is regarded to be crucial for the permissibility of an entrapment whether someone is provoked to commit an offence that he would not otherwise commit.

To widen the perspective a comparison is carried out between the way the question of entrapment is handled in Sweden and England. In England the distinction in types of entrapment is made in a different way. There is no clear regulation of the area but the court seems to approve entrapment in a wider extent than in Sweden. However it is not allowed to provoke someone to commit an offence that he would not otherwise commit.},
  author       = {Wir, Josefine},
  keyword      = {straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Bevisprovokation och brottsprovokation- en begreppsanalys i syfte att utreda provokativa åtgärders tillåtlighet},
  year         = {2013},
}