Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Synnerligen grov misshandel - En utredning av gällande rätt och kritisk granskning av 3 kap. 6 § andra stycket brottsbalken

Bartholdsson, Robin LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
2010 års straffrätts reform initierades som en reaktion på att straffen för de grövsta formerna av misshandel endast dömdes ut i den nedre fjärdedelen av straffskalan. Reformen medförde bl.a. att straffskalan för grov misshandel i 3 kap. 6 § delades upp i två stycken, där andra stycket med en strängare straffskala på fyra till tio år skulle vara tillämplig för synnerligen grova fall. De grövsta fallen skulle därigenom förskjutas från första till andra stycket. Denna uppsats har utrett denna bestämmelse i ljuset av syftet med reformen. För synnerligen grov misshandel gäller samma omständigheter som för grov misshandel. Därutöver ska misshandeln vara försvårande i förhållande till första stycket. Vid denna bedömning ska särskilt beaktas om... (More)
2010 års straffrätts reform initierades som en reaktion på att straffen för de grövsta formerna av misshandel endast dömdes ut i den nedre fjärdedelen av straffskalan. Reformen medförde bl.a. att straffskalan för grov misshandel i 3 kap. 6 § delades upp i två stycken, där andra stycket med en strängare straffskala på fyra till tio år skulle vara tillämplig för synnerligen grova fall. De grövsta fallen skulle därigenom förskjutas från första till andra stycket. Denna uppsats har utrett denna bestämmelse i ljuset av syftet med reformen. För synnerligen grov misshandel gäller samma omständigheter som för grov misshandel. Därutöver ska misshandeln vara försvårande i förhållande till första stycket. Vid denna bedömning ska särskilt beaktas om skadan varit bestående, hänsynslösheten varit synnerlig samt förorsakat ett synnerligt lidande. Bestämmelsen omfattar även tortyrliknande misshandel, men inte sådan tortyr som avses i t.ex. FN:s tortyrkonvention. Bestämmelsen berör inte tortyr i en bredare kontext.
Särskilt betydelsefullt för andra stycket har fallet NJA 2011 s. 89 varit. HD ansåg där att en mycket grov misshandel mot en försvarslös man inte var tillräckligt svår för att tillsammans med livshotande skador, vara synnerligen grov. Av fallet framgår att det krävs mycket i övrigt om skadorna inte varit bestående. Även hovrätternas praxis visar på att det krävs en hänsynslöshet som går utöver vad förarbetena ger uttryck för. I en undersökning av tingsrätternas praxis framgick att diskussioner i domskälen främst kretsar kring hänsynslösheten. I den helhetsbedömning som är avgörande i varje enskilt fall tenderar de enskilda omständigheterna att betraktas som rekvisit snarare än vägledande. Vid utformingen av 3 kap. 6 § diskuterades andra alternativ än att dela upp straffskalan, t.ex. att införa en egen rubricering eller att göra straffskalan snävare. Kritik riktades även mot att ”synnerlig” hänsynslöshet var för otydligt definierat. I grannlandet Danmark har motsvarande misshandelsbrott tillämpats med större fokus på helhetsbedömningen och större flexibilitet när det gäller de särskilda omständigheterna. Andra stycket hade på liknande sätt kunnat utformas med färre förstärkningsord och med större fokus på en övergripande helhetsbedömning.
Reformen medförde även ändringar i 29 kap., däribland 1 §. Ändringen innebar att det vid bedömningen av straffvärdet, särskilt ska beaktas om gärningen inneburit ett allvarligt angrepp på liv, hälsa eller trygghet till person. Förändringarna har emellertid haft liten effekt och straffvärdena döms fortfarande ut i den nedre fjärdedelen av straffskalan. Kritik har även riktats mot att dessa ändringar går i strid med övrig straffmätningssystematik. Regeringen har nyligen initierat en utredning genom dir. 2013:30. Utredningen ämnar se över straffskalan i 3 kap. 6 §, i syfte att uppnå den straffskärpning som var menad med 2010 års reform. (Less)
Abstract
The criminal reform of 2010 was initiated as a reaction to sentencing levels being concentrated to the lower quarter of the range of punishment for serious cases of assaults. The reform led to the division of the range of punishment for aggravated assault in chapter 3 article 6, to two separate subsections. The second subsection would apply a range of punishment between four to ten years applicable for exceptional aggravated assault. The most aggravated assaults would thereby be shifted from subsection one to two. The aim for this assay has been to investigate this provision in the light of the purpose of the reform. For cases of exceptional aggravated assault, the circumstances that qualify for aggravated assault are also applicable. In... (More)
The criminal reform of 2010 was initiated as a reaction to sentencing levels being concentrated to the lower quarter of the range of punishment for serious cases of assaults. The reform led to the division of the range of punishment for aggravated assault in chapter 3 article 6, to two separate subsections. The second subsection would apply a range of punishment between four to ten years applicable for exceptional aggravated assault. The most aggravated assaults would thereby be shifted from subsection one to two. The aim for this assay has been to investigate this provision in the light of the purpose of the reform. For cases of exceptional aggravated assault, the circumstances that qualify for aggravated assault are also applicable. In addition, the circumstances have to be aggravated in relation to subsection one. In this assessment special attention should be taken to the occurrence of permanent bodily harm, exceptional ruthlessness and exceptional suffering. The provision includes torture similar assaults but not torture as defined in the UN convention against torture. The provision does not include torture in a broader meaning.
Of particular importance is the case NJA 2011 s. 89. Here, a serious assault against a defenseless person with fatal injuries to follow was not considered ruthless enough to be considered extremely aggravated. The case shows that if the bodily harm is not permanent other circumstances must be more aggravated. The practice from the courts of appeal shows that the ruthlessness that is required goes beyond the directions given by legislators. A case study of district court rulings showed that the grounds of decision often revolve around the “ruthlessness”. In the overall assessment which is of decisive importance in each case the individual circumstances tend to be regarded as a necessity rather than guidelines. In the shaping of chapter 3 article 6 other options were discussed such as introducing a separate provision or even narrowing down the range of punishment. Criticism was also pointed towards the lack of definition for the term “exceptional” ruthlessness. In the neighboring country of Denmark equivalent provisions of assault are being applied with greater focus on an overall assessment and greater flexibility when it comes to the particular circumstances. Subsection two could in a similar way be shaped with a less amount of enforcement words and more focus on an overall assessment.
The reform also brought with it changes to chapter 29 among them article 1.With this followed that during the assessment of sentencing levels special attention should be taken to the assault implying serious attack on life, health or security of person. In practice the changes have had little effect and sentencing levels are still at the bottom of the range of punishment. Criticism has also been aimed towards the fact that the changes in chapter 29 runs counter to the principles of meeting out of punishment. The government recently initiated a commission through directive 2013:30. The commission is to look over the range of punishment for chapter 3 article 6 for the purpose of attaining sentencing levels that where to follow with the reform of 2010. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bartholdsson, Robin LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Exceptional aggravated assault - A study on applicable law and critical analasys of swedish criminal code chapter 3 article 6 subsection 2
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, komparativ rätt, synnerligen grov misshandel, grov misshandel, 2010 års straffreform
language
Swedish
id
3801351
date added to LUP
2013-06-17 06:57:41
date last changed
2013-12-16 12:57:55
@misc{3801351,
  abstract     = {The criminal reform of 2010 was initiated as a reaction to sentencing levels being concentrated to the lower quarter of the range of punishment for serious cases of assaults. The reform led to the division of the range of punishment for aggravated assault in chapter 3 article 6, to two separate subsections. The second subsection would apply a range of punishment between four to ten years applicable for exceptional aggravated assault. The most aggravated assaults would thereby be shifted from subsection one to two. The aim for this assay has been to investigate this provision in the light of the purpose of the reform. For cases of exceptional aggravated assault, the circumstances that qualify for aggravated assault are also applicable. In addition, the circumstances have to be aggravated in relation to subsection one. In this assessment special attention should be taken to the occurrence of permanent bodily harm, exceptional ruthlessness and exceptional suffering. The provision includes torture similar assaults but not torture as defined in the UN convention against torture. The provision does not include torture in a broader meaning.
Of particular importance is the case NJA 2011 s. 89. Here, a serious assault against a defenseless person with fatal injuries to follow was not considered ruthless enough to be considered extremely aggravated. The case shows that if the bodily harm is not permanent other circumstances must be more aggravated. The practice from the courts of appeal shows that the ruthlessness that is required goes beyond the directions given by legislators. A case study of district court rulings showed that the grounds of decision often revolve around the “ruthlessness”. In the overall assessment which is of decisive importance in each case the individual circumstances tend to be regarded as a necessity rather than guidelines. In the shaping of chapter 3 article 6 other options were discussed such as introducing a separate provision or even narrowing down the range of punishment. Criticism was also pointed towards the lack of definition for the term “exceptional” ruthlessness. In the neighboring country of Denmark equivalent provisions of assault are being applied with greater focus on an overall assessment and greater flexibility when it comes to the particular circumstances. Subsection two could in a similar way be shaped with a less amount of enforcement words and more focus on an overall assessment.
The reform also brought with it changes to chapter 29 among them article 1.With this followed that during the assessment of sentencing levels special attention should be taken to the assault implying serious attack on life, health or security of person. In practice the changes have had little effect and sentencing levels are still at the bottom of the range of punishment. Criticism has also been aimed towards the fact that the changes in chapter 29 runs counter to the principles of meeting out of punishment. The government recently initiated a commission through directive 2013:30. The commission is to look over the range of punishment for chapter 3 article 6 for the purpose of attaining sentencing levels that where to follow with the reform of 2010.},
  author       = {Bartholdsson, Robin},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,komparativ rätt,synnerligen grov misshandel,grov misshandel,2010 års straffreform},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Synnerligen grov misshandel - En utredning av gällande rätt och kritisk granskning av 3 kap. 6 § andra stycket brottsbalken},
  year         = {2013},
}