Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Avgörande utan huvudförhandling - En granskning av gällande rätt samt betänkandet SOU 2013:17

Blom, Mathilda LU (2013) LAGF03 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Huvudregeln i svensk rätt är att brottmål ska avgöras i domstol och att domen ska grundas på det material som framkommer under huvudförhandlingen. Genom reformen om en modern rättegång som genomfördes 2008 infördes en möjlighet att avgöra bötesmål på handlingarna, det vill säga utan att hålla huvudförhandling. Syftet var att göra det processuella regelverket mer flexibelt så att handläggningen kunde anpassas till omständigheter i det enskilda fallet. Förhoppningen var att handläggningstiderna i domstol skulle förkortas. Utredningar visar att reformen har fallit väl ut. Nyligen presenterades betänkandet SOU 2013:17 Brottmålsprocessen där det ges förslag på åtgärder som syftar till att effektivisera brottmålsprocessen ytterligare. Bland... (More)
Huvudregeln i svensk rätt är att brottmål ska avgöras i domstol och att domen ska grundas på det material som framkommer under huvudförhandlingen. Genom reformen om en modern rättegång som genomfördes 2008 infördes en möjlighet att avgöra bötesmål på handlingarna, det vill säga utan att hålla huvudförhandling. Syftet var att göra det processuella regelverket mer flexibelt så att handläggningen kunde anpassas till omständigheter i det enskilda fallet. Förhoppningen var att handläggningstiderna i domstol skulle förkortas. Utredningar visar att reformen har fallit väl ut. Nyligen presenterades betänkandet SOU 2013:17 Brottmålsprocessen där det ges förslag på åtgärder som syftar till att effektivisera brottmålsprocessen ytterligare. Bland annat föreslås att den tilltalades inställning till målet ska få ökad betydelse. Dessutom föreslås att åklagaren i samtliga mål som faller under allmänt åtal ska yrka på en påföljd. I de fall påföljden inte uppgår till mer än sex månaders fängelse ska målet kunna avgöras på handlingarna. Det krävs dock att den tilltalade erkänt gärningen. I Europakonventionen uppställs vissa krav på brottmålsprocessen som inte får åsidosättas, exempelvis en parts rätt till muntlig huvudförhandling. För att nå upp till den regeln har därför den tilltalade alltid rätt att begära huvudförhandling.

Det finns en del negativa konsekvenser med ett förenklat förfarande som bör uppmärksammas. Bland annat finns en risk för falska erkännanden. Likaså finns en fara att objektiviteten i utredningsarbetet åsidosätts. Faktorer som kan påverka objektiviteten är tidspress, arbetsförhållanden, personligt engagemang och medial uppmärksamhet kring brottet. Om för mycket fokus läggs på att effektivisera brottmålsprocessen finns risk att kvantitet blir viktigare än kvalitet vilket i förlängningen kan sätta rättssäkerheten på spel. (Less)
Abstract
The general rule in Swedish law is that criminal cases should be determined in court and the sentence should be based on the material that is presented during the main hearing.
In 2008, the reform of a modern trial was introduced. Thereby, cases can be decided without a main hearing in situations where there is no reason to impose a sanction other than a fine. The aim was to make the legal framework more flexible so that the legal procedure could be adapted to the circumstances in each case. The expectation was to shorten the processing time in court. Reports show that the reform has been successful. Recently the report SOU 2013:17 The criminal trial procedure was presented and it provides suggestions to make the procedure in criminal... (More)
The general rule in Swedish law is that criminal cases should be determined in court and the sentence should be based on the material that is presented during the main hearing.
In 2008, the reform of a modern trial was introduced. Thereby, cases can be decided without a main hearing in situations where there is no reason to impose a sanction other than a fine. The aim was to make the legal framework more flexible so that the legal procedure could be adapted to the circumstances in each case. The expectation was to shorten the processing time in court. Reports show that the reform has been successful. Recently the report SOU 2013:17 The criminal trial procedure was presented and it provides suggestions to make the procedure in criminal cases even more efficient. Among other things it is proposed that the position the accused is adopting should become more important. Furthermore it is suggested the prosecutor should present an application about sanction in all cases falling under public prosecution. In cases where sanction does not amount to more than six months in prison the sentence could be delivered on documentary evidence. It is, however, demanded that the accused has confessed to the act. In the European Convention on Human Rights there are some requirements on the procedure in criminal cases that cannot be superseded, for example the right to a fair trial including the right to an oral hearing. To achieve the rule in the convention the accused always has the right to request a main hearing.

There are some negative consequences with the simplified way to rule that should be observed. For example there is a risk of false confessions. There is also a risk that the objectivity in the investigatory work will be put aside. Elements that can affect the objectivity are pressure of time, service conditions, personal involvement and medial awareness of the case. If too much focus is put on how to make the criminal trial procedure more efficient there is a risk that quantity becomes more important than quality, which in turn could jeopardize the rule of law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Blom, Mathilda LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20131
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt förenklat förfarande
language
Swedish
id
3800677
date added to LUP
2013-09-11 13:41:53
date last changed
2013-09-11 13:41:53
@misc{3800677,
  abstract     = {The general rule in Swedish law is that criminal cases should be determined in court and the sentence should be based on the material that is presented during the main hearing. 
In 2008, the reform of a modern trial was introduced. Thereby, cases can be decided without a main hearing in situations where there is no reason to impose a sanction other than a fine. The aim was to make the legal framework more flexible so that the legal procedure could be adapted to the circumstances in each case. The expectation was to shorten the processing time in court. Reports show that the reform has been successful. Recently the report SOU 2013:17 The criminal trial procedure was presented and it provides suggestions to make the procedure in criminal cases even more efficient. Among other things it is proposed that the position the accused is adopting should become more important. Furthermore it is suggested the prosecutor should present an application about sanction in all cases falling under public prosecution. In cases where sanction does not amount to more than six months in prison the sentence could be delivered on documentary evidence. It is, however, demanded that the accused has confessed to the act. In the European Convention on Human Rights there are some requirements on the procedure in criminal cases that cannot be superseded, for example the right to a fair trial including the right to an oral hearing. To achieve the rule in the convention the accused always has the right to request a main hearing. 

There are some negative consequences with the simplified way to rule that should be observed. For example there is a risk of false confessions. There is also a risk that the objectivity in the investigatory work will be put aside. Elements that can affect the objectivity are pressure of time, service conditions, personal involvement and medial awareness of the case. If too much focus is put on how to make the criminal trial procedure more efficient there is a risk that quantity becomes more important than quality, which in turn could jeopardize the rule of law.},
  author       = {Blom, Mathilda},
  keyword      = {straffrätt förenklat förfarande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Avgörande utan huvudförhandling - En granskning av gällande rätt samt betänkandet SOU 2013:17},
  year         = {2013},
}