Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ord mot ord - en granskning av bevisvärdering vid våldtäktsmål

Bogren, Malin LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
När åtal mer eller mindre enbart vilar på målsägandens utsaga, vilket är vanligt vid våldtäktsfall där bevisningen ofta hänförs till uttryck för bristande samtycke eller bristande uppsåt, är det domstolens ansvar att värdera utsagan och avgöra om den uppfyller beviskravet. Syftet med uppsatsen är att granska och analysera hur denna värdering bör utföras samt hur den går till i praktiken. Engelsk rätt används för att granska ett alternativt tillvägagångssätt för inspiration till vidare analys av den svenska rätten. Psykologi och bevisvärderingsmodeller behandlas inte ingående, utan används i den mån som är behövligt för att förstå bevisvärderingen. Behandlingen av den engelska rätten berör de centrala delarna av processrätten, och i viss... (More)
När åtal mer eller mindre enbart vilar på målsägandens utsaga, vilket är vanligt vid våldtäktsfall där bevisningen ofta hänförs till uttryck för bristande samtycke eller bristande uppsåt, är det domstolens ansvar att värdera utsagan och avgöra om den uppfyller beviskravet. Syftet med uppsatsen är att granska och analysera hur denna värdering bör utföras samt hur den går till i praktiken. Engelsk rätt används för att granska ett alternativt tillvägagångssätt för inspiration till vidare analys av den svenska rätten. Psykologi och bevisvärderingsmodeller behandlas inte ingående, utan används i den mån som är behövligt för att förstå bevisvärderingen. Behandlingen av den engelska rätten berör de centrala delarna av processrätten, och i viss mån våldtäktslagstiftningen, som är relevanta för bevisvärderingen. Till min hjälp har jag tillämpat traditionell juridisk metod och då främst doktrin. Två rättsfall har används för granskning av utsageanalyser där realitetskriterier jämförs med forskning.
Svensk processrätt måste uppfylla EKMR:s och EU:s krav på en rättvis rättegång som bl.a. innebär att den tilltalade presumeras vara oskyldig. Rättsprocessen utgår ifrån bl.a. omedelbarhetsprincipen, muntlighetsprincipen och koncentrationsprincipen för att skapa bra beslutsunderlag. Beviskravet är att åtalet ska vara styrkt bortom rimligt tvivel, vilket är liknande i engelsk rätt. I svensk rätt tillämpas fri bevisföring och fri bevisprövning, med viss möjlighet att avvisa bevisning. Tvivelaktig bevisning ges istället ett lågt bevisvärde. Domstolarnas värdering måste vara objektivt grundad och motiveras i domstolarna samt får ej vara en helhetsbedömning. Trots krav på objektivitet har viss subjektivitet medgetts i doktrin och jag anser att subjektiviteten, som i viss mån är oundviklig, bör föras fram i ljuset genom utförligare domskäl så att den kan kritiseras och granskas samt att domarna då tvingas rannsaka sina skäl grundligare.
Vid bevisvärdering finns ingen legal ledning, men vissa instruktioner kan utrönas i rättegångsbalken. Det finns modeller i doktrin, men det är inte bevisat att de används. Domstolen bör använda hypotetiska friande alternativ vid värderingen. Domarna använder allmänna erfarenhetssatser i sin bedömning vilka kan innehålla stereotypiska fördomar.
Utsageanalyser består av en trovärdighetsbedömning, hänförlig till person, och en tillförlitlighetsbedömning, hänförlig till uppgifterna i utsagan. Därvid används realitetskriterier som är relativt enhetliga i praxis såsom konstans och detaljrikedom för att avgöra utsagans sanningsenlighet. Vid denna analys bör domstolen ta hänsyn till felaktigheter i bl.a. perception och minne, samt vara uppmärksam på egna stereotyper vid tolkning av utsagan. Tolkningen bör även göras systematiskt. Domstolarna verkar dock använda kriterierna schablonmässigt och utan djupare analys.
England har ett kontradiktoriskt domstolsförfarande och använder sig av legal bevisföring där bevisning om ex. dålig karaktär och tidigare sexuell erfarenhet som huvudregel är otillåten. De har en jury som utför bevisvärderingen på instruktioner av domaren, och juryns motivering dokumenteras inte i domskäl. (Less)
Abstract
When an indictment, more or less, depends on the complainant’s testimony, as it often is in the case of rape when the evidence relates to the issue of consent or mens rea, it is up to the court to evaluate the testimony and decide whether or not it meets the standard of proof. The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyse how that evaluation should be performed and how it is currently performed in practice. English law is used to examine an alternative course of action as an inspiration for further analysis of the swedish law. Psychology and evidence evaluation models are not covered in depth, only as much as is needed for the comprehension of the evaluation of evidence. The treatment of English law effects the central aspects of... (More)
When an indictment, more or less, depends on the complainant’s testimony, as it often is in the case of rape when the evidence relates to the issue of consent or mens rea, it is up to the court to evaluate the testimony and decide whether or not it meets the standard of proof. The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyse how that evaluation should be performed and how it is currently performed in practice. English law is used to examine an alternative course of action as an inspiration for further analysis of the swedish law. Psychology and evidence evaluation models are not covered in depth, only as much as is needed for the comprehension of the evaluation of evidence. The treatment of English law effects the central aspects of procedural law, and to some degree their regulation of rape, which is relevant for the evaluation of evidence. I applied a traditional legal method, using mainly doctrine. I used two court cases to examine the analyses of testimonies where criterias of content are compared with research.
Swedish procedural law must meet the requirements of ECHR and EU for a fair trial which i.a. contends that the accused is presumed to be innocent. The trial is based on i.a. the principles of immediacy, orality and concentration to assure a good foundation for the judgement. The standard of proof requires that guilt should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is similar in English law. Swedish law applies free submission and free evalutation of evidence with some possibility to reject evidence. Doubtful evidence should instead be given a lower value. The courts evaluation must be objective and motivated in the findings of the court and may not be an overall assesment. Despite the demands of objectivity some subjectivity has been acknowledged in doctrine and I think that subjectivity, which is to some extent unavoidable, should be brought into the light through more detailed reasoning to enable critique and examination and also force the judges to reexamine their decision in detail.
The court has no legal guidance for their evaluation of evidene, but some instructions can be interpreted from the code of procedure. Certain models for evaluation exists in doctrine, but is not proven to be practised. The courts should make use of hypothetical exculpatory alternatives in their evaluation. Judges use their general experience in their assessment which often contends stereotypical prejudices.
Analyses of testimonies consists of a credibility assessment, attributable to the person, and a reliability assesment, relating to the information contained in the testimony. Thereby content criterias are used, which seems to be relatively uniform in the courts such as constancy and the amount of details to determine the veracity of the testimony. This analysis should take into account the inaccuracies of i.a. perception and memory, and the judges should be mindful of their own stereotypes in the interpretation of the testimony. The interpretation of the testimony should also be systematic. The courts seem to use the criterias mechanically and without deeper analysis.
England has an adversarial court procedure and apply legal evidence where evidence of i.a. bad character and previous sexual experience as a general rule is prohibited. In England the evaluation of evidence is performed by a jury on instructions of the judge, and the verdict of the jury is not documented. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bogren, Malin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Processrätt, Bevisvärdering, Ord mot ord, våldtäkt
language
Swedish
id
4227576
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 17:31:53
date last changed
2014-01-28 17:31:53
@misc{4227576,
  abstract     = {When an indictment, more or less, depends on the complainant’s testimony, as it often is in the case of rape when the evidence relates to the issue of consent or mens rea, it is up to the court to evaluate the testimony and decide whether or not it meets the standard of proof. The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyse how that evaluation should be performed and how it is currently performed in practice. English law is used to examine an alternative course of action as an inspiration for further analysis of the swedish law. Psychology and evidence evaluation models are not covered in depth, only as much as is needed for the comprehension of the evaluation of evidence. The treatment of English law effects the central aspects of procedural law, and to some degree their regulation of rape, which is relevant for the evaluation of evidence. I applied a traditional legal method, using mainly doctrine. I used two court cases to examine the analyses of testimonies where criterias of content are compared with research.
	Swedish procedural law must meet the requirements of ECHR and EU for a fair trial which i.a. contends that the accused is presumed to be innocent. The trial is based on i.a. the principles of immediacy, orality and concentration to assure a good foundation for the judgement. The standard of proof requires that guilt should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is similar in English law. Swedish law applies free submission and free evalutation of evidence with some possibility to reject evidence. Doubtful evidence should instead be given a lower value. The courts evaluation must be objective and motivated in the findings of the court and may not be an overall assesment. Despite the demands of objectivity some subjectivity has been acknowledged in doctrine and I think that subjectivity, which is to some extent unavoidable, should be brought into the light through more detailed reasoning to enable critique and examination and also force the judges to reexamine their decision in detail.
	 The court has no legal guidance for their evaluation of evidene, but some instructions can be interpreted from the code of procedure. Certain models for evaluation exists in doctrine, but is not proven to be practised. The courts should make use of hypothetical exculpatory alternatives in their evaluation. Judges use their general experience in their assessment which often contends stereotypical prejudices. 
	Analyses of testimonies consists of a credibility assessment, attributable to the person, and a reliability assesment, relating to the information contained in the testimony. Thereby content criterias are used, which seems to be relatively uniform in the courts such as constancy and the amount of details to determine the veracity of the testimony. This analysis should take into account the inaccuracies of i.a. perception and memory, and the judges should be mindful of their own stereotypes in the interpretation of the testimony. The interpretation of the testimony should also be systematic. The courts seem to use the criterias mechanically and without deeper analysis. 
	England has an adversarial court procedure and apply legal evidence where evidence of i.a. bad character and previous sexual experience as a general rule is prohibited. In England the evaluation of evidence is performed by a jury on instructions of the judge, and the verdict of the jury is not documented.},
  author       = {Bogren, Malin},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,Processrätt,Bevisvärdering,Ord mot ord,våldtäkt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ord mot ord - en granskning av bevisvärdering vid våldtäktsmål},
  year         = {2013},
}