Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Från person till situation - en studie av den förändrade nedre gränsen för uppsåt

Olander, Sandra LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsens behandlar den nedre gränsen för uppsåt i svensk rätt, gränsen mellan uppsåt och oaktsamhet. Uppsatsen fokuserar på hur uppsåtets nedre gräns kom att förändras i och med NJA 2004 s. 176 och hur uppsåtets nedre gräns och bevisning kring denna tillämpas i praxis idag. Uppsatsen undersöker också om dagens rättsläge ligger i linje med den som HD förespråkade i NJA 2004 s. 176 och om en ytterligare utveckling av rättsläget behövs. En rättsfallsstudie har genomförts för att undersöka hur rättsläget ser ut idag har. I övrigt används den rättsdogmatiska metoden. Genomgående i uppsatsen analyseras resultaten i ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv.

Den uppsåtskonstruktion som används idag har växt fram genom en utveckling i praxis och doktrin.... (More)
Uppsatsens behandlar den nedre gränsen för uppsåt i svensk rätt, gränsen mellan uppsåt och oaktsamhet. Uppsatsen fokuserar på hur uppsåtets nedre gräns kom att förändras i och med NJA 2004 s. 176 och hur uppsåtets nedre gräns och bevisning kring denna tillämpas i praxis idag. Uppsatsen undersöker också om dagens rättsläge ligger i linje med den som HD förespråkade i NJA 2004 s. 176 och om en ytterligare utveckling av rättsläget behövs. En rättsfallsstudie har genomförts för att undersöka hur rättsläget ser ut idag har. I övrigt används den rättsdogmatiska metoden. Genomgående i uppsatsen analyseras resultaten i ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv.

Den uppsåtskonstruktion som används idag har växt fram genom en utveckling i praxis och doktrin. Tidigare användes en uppsåtskonstruktion som bestod av direkt, indirekt och eventuellt uppsåt. Det sistnämnda var beroende av ett hypotetiskt prov och var starkt kritiserat. NJA 2004 s. 176 innebar en stor förändring av rättsläget och numera används en uppsåtskonstruktion som består av avsiktsuppsåt, insiktsuppsåt och likgiltighetsuppsåt där det sistnämnda utgör uppsåtets nedre gräns. Enligt domen krävs för att likgiltighetsuppsåt ska föreligga att gärningsmannen insett att det funnits en risk för att den aktuella följden kan komma att förverkligas eller den aktuella omständigheten föreligga. Därutöver ska gärningsmannen ha en inställning i förhållande till förverkligandet av denna risk som kan beskrivas som likgiltig. Den rättsfallsundersökning som genomförts visar att likgiltighetsuppsåtet fått genomslag i praxis. Den bedömning som HD förespråkar används i stor utsträckning, men det varierar hur utförligt denna utförs.

I NJA 2004 s. 176 uttalade HD också vissa riktlinjer för bevisning av likgiltighetsuppsåt. Domstolen uttalade att utgångspunkten för uppsåtsbedömningen ska vara omständigheterna vid den aktuella gärningen och att sannolikheten för riskens förverkligande är ett mycket viktigt bevisfaktum. Andra faktorer av betydelse som nämndes var hänsynslöst beteende, upprörd sinnestämning och gärningsmannens intresse i gärningen. Flera personer inom doktrinen var kritiska till dessa faktorer och ansåg att det var oklart vilken betydelse de skulle tillmätas.

Rättsfallsundersökningen visar i enlighet med vad HD förespråkade att i dagens praxis är utgångspunkten för bedömningen den aktuella situationen. Även sannolikheten för riskens förverkligande har fått en stor betydelse men trots detta klassificerar domstolen inte alltid denna risk. De övriga faktorer som HD lyfte fram i NJA 2004 s. 176 används i begränsad omfattning i praxis idag. Detta beror troligen på att innebörden av dessa, vilket även framfördes i doktrin, alltjämt är oklara.

Uppsatsen konstaterar att definitionen av uppsåtets nedre gräns är viktig då denna utgör skillnaden mellan en uppsåtlig och en oaktsam gärning vilket har betydelse för en gärnings straffvärde. Uppsåtskonstruktionen är också viktig för att kunna gradera olika uppsåtliga gärningar inbördes då även olika typer av uppsåtliga gärningar innehåller olika grader av klander. Konstruktionen måste också leva upp till de krav som uppställs av rättssäkerheten. Slutsatsen som dras är att det behövs en ytterligare utveckling av rättsläget för att detta ska kunna betecknas som klart. För detta syfte förespråkas att bedömningarna av likgiltighetsuppsåt bör motiveras mer utförligt och vara mer individualiserade till gärningsmannen. Framförallt behövs en ytterligare utveckling av de bevisfakta som enligt HD skulle tala för likgiltighet. För att detta ska ske rekommenderas mer utförliga domskäl och ett enhetligt klassificeringssystem av sannolikheten för riskens förverkligande. (Less)
Abstract
This essay discusses the lower limit of intent, the line between intent and carelessness. The main focus of this essay is how the lower limit of intent changed due to NJA 2004 s. 176. In addition, the essay examines the use of the lower limit of intent and the surrounding evidence in current case law. The essay also examines whether the current legal position is in line with the one that The Supreme Court favored and if further development of the legal position is needed. A court case study has been carried out to investigate the current legal situation. For the rest of the essay a method based on law, case law and legal science have been used. Throughout the essay the rule of law has been used as a reference theory.

The construction... (More)
This essay discusses the lower limit of intent, the line between intent and carelessness. The main focus of this essay is how the lower limit of intent changed due to NJA 2004 s. 176. In addition, the essay examines the use of the lower limit of intent and the surrounding evidence in current case law. The essay also examines whether the current legal position is in line with the one that The Supreme Court favored and if further development of the legal position is needed. A court case study has been carried out to investigate the current legal situation. For the rest of the essay a method based on law, case law and legal science have been used. Throughout the essay the rule of law has been used as a reference theory.

The construction of intent that is used today has evolved through case law and legal science. Previously the construction of intent was composed of direct intent, indirect intent and contingent intent. The latter was depending on a hypothetical test which was strongly criticized. NJA 2004 s. 176 greatly changed the legal position and nowadays the construction of intent is composed of intent by purpose, intent with insight and indifferent intent with the latter as the construction's lower limit. According to the judgment the offender must be aware of the risk that the relevant effect might be realized or that the relevant circumstance was at hand for indifferent intent to be applied. In addition to this the offender must have an attitude towards the risk that can be described as indifferent. The court case study indicates that the indifferent intent has had a big impact on case law. The assessment that The Supreme Court favors is widely used, although it varies how thoroughly it is executed.

In NJA 2004 s. 176 The Supreme Court expressed some guidelines for evidence of indifferent intent. The Supreme Court stated that the assessment criteria of intent will be the circumstances of the current offence and also that the probability of risk realization is a very important evidentiary fact. Other factors mentioned as important were reckless behavior, upset state of mind and the offender's interest in the deed. Several people within the legal science were critical and thought it was unclear what impact the factors would have.

The court case study shows in alignment with The Supreme Court's statement that in current case law the current situation is the starting point for the assessment. The probability of risk realization is also of great importance, but even so this risk is not always classified. The other factors that The Supreme Court emphasized in NJA 2004 s. 176 is rarely used in current case law. This is probably due to the still unclear meaning of the factors, which was also expressed in legal science.

According to the essay the lower limit for intent is of great importance because the difference between an intentional act and a careless act has consequences for the given penalty. The construction of the intent is also important to grade the different intentional acts among each other. Even different types of intentional acts contain different degrees of blame. It is also important that the construction fulfills the requirements given by the rule of law. The conclusion it that further development is needed for the legal situation to be declared as clarified. It is advocated that the assessments of indifferent intent should be motivated more explicitly and to a higher degree be individualized to the offender. In particular the evidentiary facts that The Supreme Court stated to support indifference need to be further developed. To make this happen, the essay suggests more extensive grounds for the judgments and a consistent classification system for the probability of risk realization. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
@misc{4230835,
  abstract     = {This essay discusses the lower limit of intent, the line between intent and carelessness. The main focus of this essay is how the lower limit of intent changed due to NJA 2004 s. 176. In addition, the essay examines the use of the lower limit of intent and the surrounding evidence in current case law. The essay also examines whether the current legal position is in line with the one that The Supreme Court favored and if further development of the legal position is needed. A court case study has been carried out to investigate the current legal situation. For the rest of the essay a method based on law, case law and legal science have been used. Throughout the essay the rule of law has been used as a reference theory. 

The construction of intent that is used today has evolved through case law and legal science. Previously the construction of intent was composed of direct intent, indirect intent and contingent intent. The latter was depending on a hypothetical test which was strongly criticized. NJA 2004 s. 176 greatly changed the legal position and nowadays the construction of intent is composed of intent by purpose, intent with insight and indifferent intent with the latter as the construction's lower limit. According to the judgment the offender must be aware of the risk that the relevant effect might be realized or that the relevant circumstance was at hand for indifferent intent to be applied. In addition to this the offender must have an attitude towards the risk that can be described as indifferent. The court case study indicates that the indifferent intent has had a big impact on case law. The assessment that The Supreme Court favors is widely used, although it varies how thoroughly it is executed.

In NJA 2004 s. 176 The Supreme Court expressed some guidelines for evidence of indifferent intent. The Supreme Court stated that the assessment criteria of intent will be the circumstances of the current offence and also that the probability of risk realization is a very important evidentiary fact. Other factors mentioned as important were reckless behavior, upset state of mind and the offender's interest in the deed. Several people within the legal science were critical and thought it was unclear what impact the factors would have. 

The court case study shows in alignment with The Supreme Court's statement that in current case law the current situation is the starting point for the assessment. The probability of risk realization is also of great importance, but even so this risk is not always classified. The other factors that The Supreme Court emphasized in NJA 2004 s. 176 is rarely used in current case law. This is probably due to the still unclear meaning of the factors, which was also expressed in legal science. 

According to the essay the lower limit for intent is of great importance because the difference between an intentional act and a careless act has consequences for the given penalty. The construction of the intent is also important to grade the different intentional acts among each other. Even different types of intentional acts contain different degrees of blame. It is also important that the construction fulfills the requirements given by the rule of law. The conclusion it that further development is needed for the legal situation to be declared as clarified. It is advocated that the assessments of indifferent intent should be motivated more explicitly and to a higher degree be individualized to the offender. In particular the evidentiary facts that The Supreme Court stated to support indifference need to be further developed. To make this happen, the essay suggests more extensive grounds for the judgments and a consistent classification system for the probability of risk realization.},
  author       = {Olander, Sandra},
  keyword      = {allmän rättslära (en. jurisprudence),arbetsrätt (en. labour law),associationsrätt,avtalsrätt,bankrätt (en. banking law),boenderätt,civilrätt (en. private law),EU-rätt (en. EU law),familjerätt,fastighetsrätt,finansrätt (en. fiscal law),folkrätt (en. public international law),företagsekonomi,förmögenhetsrätt,försäkringsrätt,förvaltningsrätt (en. administrative law),immaterialrätt,internationell privaträtt (en. private international law),IT-rätt,komparativ rätt (en. comparative law),konkurrensrätt (en. civil and criminal procedure),rättsekonomi (en law and economics),rättshistoria (en. legal history),rättssociologi,rättsvetenskap (en. law),sakrätt,sjörätt,skadeståndsrätt,skatterätt,socialrätt (en. social and welfare law),statsrätt,straffrätt (en. criminal law),transporträtt,utrikeshandelsrätt.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Från person till situation - en studie av den förändrade nedre gränsen för uppsåt},
  year         = {2013},
}