Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Hur kunde det gå så fel? - en studie av hur domen i Appojaurefallet rämnade bara för att Quick tog tillbaka sitt erkännande

Johansson, Henry LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Thomas Quick, numera Sture Bergwall, har kallats Sveriges värste seriemördare. Nu krackelerar den bilden. Sedan Thomas Quick tog tillbaka sina erkännanden har han praktiskt blivit friad från samtliga åtta mord han blivit dömd för.

Syftet med framställningen är att utreda hur domen gällande Appojaurefallet kunde rämna bara för att den tilltalade Thomas Quick tog tillbaka sitt erkännande. Mer konkret är syftet att utreda om rätten på något vis brustit i värderingen av bevisen. Framställningens analysdel kommer sedan försöka förklara hur dessa brister har uppkommit och hur de bäst undviks i framtiden. Tyngdpunkten av granskningen är lagd på rättssäkerhetsaspekteten.

Framställningens övergripande frågor är: Hur kunde det gå så fel? Och... (More)
Thomas Quick, numera Sture Bergwall, har kallats Sveriges värste seriemördare. Nu krackelerar den bilden. Sedan Thomas Quick tog tillbaka sina erkännanden har han praktiskt blivit friad från samtliga åtta mord han blivit dömd för.

Syftet med framställningen är att utreda hur domen gällande Appojaurefallet kunde rämna bara för att den tilltalade Thomas Quick tog tillbaka sitt erkännande. Mer konkret är syftet att utreda om rätten på något vis brustit i värderingen av bevisen. Framställningens analysdel kommer sedan försöka förklara hur dessa brister har uppkommit och hur de bäst undviks i framtiden. Tyngdpunkten av granskningen är lagd på rättssäkerhetsaspekteten.

Framställningens övergripande frågor är: Hur kunde det gå så fel? Och hur försäkrar vi oss om att det inte blir fel igen? Huvudfokus är på rättens roll och ansvar i ärendet, men även åklagarens och polisens roller och ansvar berörs. Framställningen tar avstamp i rätten till en rättvis rättegång och syftar att besvara om Quick kan anses ha fått en.

Sammanfattningsvis kan på basis av det som berörts i framställningen konstateras följande:

• Material som talade för den tilltalades oskuld utelämnades i förundersökningsprotokollet.
• Förhören var inte kompetent genomförda.
• Polis och åklagare brast i objektivitet.
• Åklagarens redovisning av utredningsmaterialet var ofullständig och motsvarade i vart fall i vissa delar inte objektivitetskravet i 23 kap. 4 § RB.
• Rätten gjorde inte en strukturerad bevisprövning och beaktade därmed inte möjliga felkällor och varningssignaler i den tilltalades berättelse.
• Rätten gjorde inte en självständig prövning av erkännandets värde.
• Rätten fullgjorde inte sin skyldighet att kontrollera utredningens fullständighet.
• Även om försvararens passiva hållning kan ifrågasättas är utrymmet för kritik avseende försvararens insatser begränsat.
• Den tilltalades anspråk på en rättvis rättegång tillgodosågs inte.
• Om målet hade hanterats på ett korrekt sätt skulle den tilltalade sannolikt ha frikänts.

Några förslag på förbättringar görs sedan:

• Rätten bör i högre grad tillse att objektiviteten blir tillfredsställande genom dess materiella processledning.
• Rätten bör i högre grad granska förundersökningen.
• Rätten bör göra en självständig och strukturerad bevisvärdering som bland annat innehåller en prövning av en utsagas uppkomstbetingelser. (Less)
Abstract
Thomas Quick, now Sture Bergwall, has been called the worst serial killer in Sweden’s history. That picture is now falling apart. Since Thomas Quick retracted his confessions he has practically been cleared from all eight murders he was convicted for.

The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the judgement in the Appojaure case could fall apart only because the defendant retracted his confession. Did the court in some way fall short in its evaluation of the evidence? In the essay’s analysis section I will try to explain how these failings could arise and how they are best avoided in the future. The centre of gravity of the review is on the aspect of rule of law.

The essay’s overall questions are: How could it go so wrong? And... (More)
Thomas Quick, now Sture Bergwall, has been called the worst serial killer in Sweden’s history. That picture is now falling apart. Since Thomas Quick retracted his confessions he has practically been cleared from all eight murders he was convicted for.

The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the judgement in the Appojaure case could fall apart only because the defendant retracted his confession. Did the court in some way fall short in its evaluation of the evidence? In the essay’s analysis section I will try to explain how these failings could arise and how they are best avoided in the future. The centre of gravity of the review is on the aspect of rule of law.

The essay’s overall questions are: How could it go so wrong? And how do we make sure it does not happen again? Focus is on the court’s role and responsibility in the matter but also the prosecutor’s and police’s roles and responsibilities are discussed. The essay’s starting point is the defendant’s right to a fair trial and its purpose is to conclude if Quick received one.

The essay concludes the following:

• Material that spoke for the defendant’s innocence was left out in the preliminary enquiry report.
• The police interrogation was not properly conducted.
• Police and prosecutor lacked in objectivity.
• The prosecutor’s account of the police investigation was incomplete and did not, in some parts, fulfil the requirement of objectivity stated in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, chapter 23, section 4.
• The court did not conduct a structured evaluation of evidence and therefore did not take into consideration possible sources of error and warning signs in the defendant’s statement.
• The court did not conduct an independent examination of the confession’s value.
• The court did not fulfil its obligation to make certain that the case is investigated according to what its nature requires.
• Despite the defence counsel’s passiveness is the room for criticism pertaining to the counsel’s effort limited.
• The defendants right to a fair trial were not provided for.
• If the case had been properly handled, then the defendant probably would have been cleared from the beginning.

Some suggestions of improvement are then made:

• The courts should to a greater extent see that the objectivity is satisfactory through their material directions of proceedings.
• The courts should to a greater extent examine the preliminary investigation.
• The courts should conduct an independent and structured evaluation of the evidence that include an examination of a statement’s origination. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Henry LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
How could it go so wrong? - a study of how the judgement in the Appojaure case could fall apart only because Quick retracted his confession
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
processrätt, straffrätt, quick, bergwall
language
Swedish
id
4016889
date added to LUP
2013-09-23 08:06:56
date last changed
2013-09-23 08:06:56
@misc{4016889,
  abstract     = {Thomas Quick, now Sture Bergwall, has been called the worst serial killer in Sweden’s history. That picture is now falling apart. Since Thomas Quick retracted his confessions he has practically been cleared from all eight murders he was convicted for.

The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the judgement in the Appojaure case could fall apart only because the defendant retracted his confession. Did the court in some way fall short in its evaluation of the evidence? In the essay’s analysis section I will try to explain how these failings could arise and how they are best avoided in the future. The centre of gravity of the review is on the aspect of rule of law.

The essay’s overall questions are: How could it go so wrong? And how do we make sure it does not happen again? Focus is on the court’s role and responsibility in the matter but also the prosecutor’s and police’s roles and responsibilities are discussed. The essay’s starting point is the defendant’s right to a fair trial and its purpose is to conclude if Quick received one.

The essay concludes the following:

• Material that spoke for the defendant’s innocence was left out in the preliminary enquiry report.
• The police interrogation was not properly conducted.
• Police and prosecutor lacked in objectivity.
• The prosecutor’s account of the police investigation was incomplete and did not, in some parts, fulfil the requirement of objectivity stated in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, chapter 23, section 4.
• The court did not conduct a structured evaluation of evidence and therefore did not take into consideration possible sources of error and warning signs in the defendant’s statement.
• The court did not conduct an independent examination of the confession’s value.
• The court did not fulfil its obligation to make certain that the case is investigated according to what its nature requires.
• Despite the defence counsel’s passiveness is the room for criticism pertaining to the counsel’s effort limited.
• The defendants right to a fair trial were not provided for.
• If the case had been properly handled, then the defendant probably would have been cleared from the beginning.

Some suggestions of improvement are then made:

• The courts should to a greater extent see that the objectivity is satisfactory through their material directions of proceedings.
• The courts should to a greater extent examine the preliminary investigation.
• The courts should conduct an independent and structured evaluation of the evidence that include an examination of a statement’s origination.},
  author       = {Johansson, Henry},
  keyword      = {processrätt,straffrätt,quick,bergwall},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Hur kunde det gå så fel? - en studie av hur domen i Appojaurefallet rämnade bara för att Quick tog tillbaka sitt erkännande},
  year         = {2013},
}