Advanced

Utevarohandläggning i brottmål

Gustafsson, August LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract
The Swedish rules in RB 46 Ch. 15 a sets out a framework for when the courts can hold a main hearing in the absence of the accused. The rule is aimed at situations where the accused is deliberately evading court but also when the accused, for unknown reasons, is not present. The paragraph is intended to increase the efficiency of the court as well as to decrease the number of cancelled hearings by the most practical means. The cancellation of a main hearing is partly costly but it also contributes to a diminished legal certainty as the process is prolonged thereby decreasing the possibility of a correct sentence.

The legal certainty of the individual citizen ought to be protected and guaranteed by the judicial system. The question is... (More)
The Swedish rules in RB 46 Ch. 15 a sets out a framework for when the courts can hold a main hearing in the absence of the accused. The rule is aimed at situations where the accused is deliberately evading court but also when the accused, for unknown reasons, is not present. The paragraph is intended to increase the efficiency of the court as well as to decrease the number of cancelled hearings by the most practical means. The cancellation of a main hearing is partly costly but it also contributes to a diminished legal certainty as the process is prolonged thereby decreasing the possibility of a correct sentence.

The legal certainty of the individual citizen ought to be protected and guaranteed by the judicial system. The question is where the line is to be drawn for when legal certainty is to give way to a procedurally more economic judicial process. One cannot deviate from the fact that legislation is a result of judicial politics where the legislator seeks a balance between cost, efficiency and legal certainty.

A retrospective view of legal history illustrates that the courts have had varying possibilities to adjudicate in the absence of the accused. Throughout history efficiency and legal certainty have in turn given way to each other and the ruling law should be seen as a reaction to the stringent requirement of presence that was previously adopted in Sweden.
The fundamental requirement of holding a main hearing in a criminal case is that the court can carry out a satisfying investigation. This is in direct connection with an increase in legal certainty. In the application of law the term “satisfying” lacks a uniform interpretation which leads to a shortage of concurrent case law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Gustafsson, August LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, utevaro
language
Swedish
id
4228717
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 17:30:42
date last changed
2014-01-28 17:30:42
@misc{4228717,
  abstract     = {The Swedish rules in RB 46 Ch. 15 a sets out a framework for when the courts can hold a main hearing in the absence of the accused. The rule is aimed at situations where the accused is deliberately evading court but also when the accused, for unknown reasons, is not present. The paragraph is intended to increase the efficiency of the court as well as to decrease the number of cancelled hearings by the most practical means. The cancellation of a main hearing is partly costly but it also contributes to a diminished legal certainty as the process is prolonged thereby decreasing the possibility of a correct sentence. 

The legal certainty of the individual citizen ought to be protected and guaranteed by the judicial system. The question is where the line is to be drawn for when legal certainty is to give way to a procedurally more economic judicial process. One cannot deviate from the fact that legislation is a result of judicial politics where the legislator seeks a balance between cost, efficiency and legal certainty. 

A retrospective view of legal history illustrates that the courts have had varying possibilities to adjudicate in the absence of the accused. Throughout history efficiency and legal certainty have in turn given way to each other and the ruling law should be seen as a reaction to the stringent requirement of presence that was previously adopted in Sweden. 
The fundamental requirement of holding a main hearing in a criminal case is that the court can carry out a satisfying investigation. This is in direct connection with an increase in legal certainty. In the application of law the term “satisfying” lacks a uniform interpretation which leads to a shortage of concurrent case law.},
  author       = {Gustafsson, August},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,utevaro},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Utevarohandläggning i brottmål},
  year         = {2013},
}