Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Strukturerad bevisvärdering eller ren gissningslek? En studie av tingsrätternas bevisvärdering vid våldtäkt år 2012

Olsson, Frida LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Domstolens bevisvärdering, att värdera fakta i ett mål, är ett av de mest väsentliga momenten inom rättsskipningen. Bevisvärderingen regleras huvudsakligen genom den fria bevisprövningens princip i 35 kap. 1 § BrB. Bestämmelsen är utformad som en generalklausul och lämnar ett relativt stort spelrum för hur domstolen ska genomföra sin bevisvärdering.

Våldtäkt regleras i 6 kap. 1 § BrB och är ett brott som vållar särskild bevisproblematik. Detta beror på att teknisk bevisning och vittnen ofta saknas. Bevisningen består ofta enbart av målsägandens och den tilltalades oförenliga utsagor. HD har i rättspraxis uttalat att det faktum att bevisningen i många sexualmål huvudsakligen utgörs av målsägandens utsaga inte hindrar att bevisningen... (More)
Domstolens bevisvärdering, att värdera fakta i ett mål, är ett av de mest väsentliga momenten inom rättsskipningen. Bevisvärderingen regleras huvudsakligen genom den fria bevisprövningens princip i 35 kap. 1 § BrB. Bestämmelsen är utformad som en generalklausul och lämnar ett relativt stort spelrum för hur domstolen ska genomföra sin bevisvärdering.

Våldtäkt regleras i 6 kap. 1 § BrB och är ett brott som vållar särskild bevisproblematik. Detta beror på att teknisk bevisning och vittnen ofta saknas. Bevisningen består ofta enbart av målsägandens och den tilltalades oförenliga utsagor. HD har i rättspraxis uttalat att det faktum att bevisningen i många sexualmål huvudsakligen utgörs av målsägandens utsaga inte hindrar att bevisningen ändå kan anses tillräcklig för fällande dom. Centralt för domstolen blir därför ofta att bedöma trovärdigheten och tillförlitligheten av parternas utsagor.

Syftet med uppsatsen var att lyfta fram våldtäktsbrottet i förhållande till dess särskilda bevisproblematik och att belysa hur domstolens bevisvärdering går till. Syftet mynnade ut i följande frågeställningar; vilka omständigheter beaktar domstolen och vilka regler har den att förhålla sig till vid sin bevisvärdering i ett våldtäktsmål? Vilka bevissvårigheter finns i ett våldtäktsmål? Är domstolens bevisvärdering vid våldtäktsbrotten tillfredsställande eller kan den förbättras?
Uppsatsens inledande och teoretiska del har genomförts med en traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod vilket innebär att gällande rätt har tolkats utifrån lag, förarbeten och praxis. Uppsatsens senare del är av mer praktisk karaktär där materialet analyserats och bearbetats genom en rättsfallsstudie som bestått i att samtliga tingsrättsavgöranden rörande våldtäkt för år 2012 studerats.
Av rättsfallsstudiens 169 avgöranden ogillades åtalet i 36 % av fallen. Gärningsmännen var i 99 % av fallen män och offren var i 98 % av fallen kvinnor. Våldtäkterna delades i studien upp i tre kategorier med hänsyn till relationen mellan gärningsman och offer; våldtäkt i nära relation, våldtäkt av ytligt bekant och våldtäkt av obekant. Enligt studien var våldtäkt av ytligt bekant den vanligast förekommande. Samtliga fall där domstolen bedömt målsäganden som icke trovärdig ledde till friande domar och samtliga fall där domstolen bedömt målsägandens uppgifter som icke tillförlitliga ledde till friande domar.
Slutsatserna som jag kommit fram till är som följer. Domstolen är relativt fri i sin bevisvärdering. Den fria bevisprövningens princip är utformad som en generalklausul och ger endast domstolen en fingervisning om hur bevisvärderingen ska ske. Domstolen ska pröva allt som är bevisat i målet och bevissvårigheterna beror ofta på att det saknas teknisk bevisning och vittnen. Det har föreslagits en sänkning av beviskravet i sexualmål för att kunna öka andelen fällande domar, något som jag är negativ till. En sänkning av beviskravet hade allvarligt äventyrat rättssäkerheten. För att komma åt de fall som inte når upp till våldtäktsbestämmelsens krav på våld eller hot har det föreslagits en ändring innebärande att bestämmelsen blir samtyckesbaserad. Jag anser inte att denna ändring bör genomföras framförallt med anledning av att alltför mycket fokus genom detta hade hamnat på offret och dennes sexualitet. Jag tror att en del av problematiken och oklarheterna kring bevisvärderingen i våldtäktsmål istället hade kunnat lösas om domstolarna skrev utförligare domskäl som tydligare motiverade hur bevisvärderingen genomförts.

Sexualbrottslagstiftningen har kritiserats hårt men jag tror att det är viktigt att skilja på lagstiftarens intentioner och rättsväsendets tillämpning. Jag tror att problemet består i en oklar rättstillämpning snarare än en bristande lagstiftning och att problemet därmed angripits från fel håll. Jag tror vidare att det är viktigare att satsa på kvalitet än kvantitet. Istället för att fokusera på att öka andelen fällande våldtäktsdomar borde fokus ligga på att bevisvärderingen i våldtäktsmålen genomförs på ett så korrekt och rättssäkert sätt som möjligt. (Less)
Abstract
The Courts assessment of the evidence, to evaluate facts in a case, is one of the most essential steps in the administration of justice. The assessment of evidence is regulated mainly by the ”free proof of principle trial” in chapter 35 § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure . The regulation is designed as a general clause, leaving a relatively large scope for the Court to implement its assessment of the evidence.

Rape is regulated in chapter 6 § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and it´s a crime that causes problems of proof. The reasons are the lack of technical evidence and witnesses. The evidence often consists solely of the plaintiff and the defendant's inconsistent statements. The Supreme Court has in case law stated that the... (More)
The Courts assessment of the evidence, to evaluate facts in a case, is one of the most essential steps in the administration of justice. The assessment of evidence is regulated mainly by the ”free proof of principle trial” in chapter 35 § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure . The regulation is designed as a general clause, leaving a relatively large scope for the Court to implement its assessment of the evidence.

Rape is regulated in chapter 6 § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and it´s a crime that causes problems of proof. The reasons are the lack of technical evidence and witnesses. The evidence often consists solely of the plaintiff and the defendant's inconsistent statements. The Supreme Court has in case law stated that the fact that the evidence in rape cases mainly consists of plaintiff's statement does not preclude that the evidence can be considered sufficient for a conviction. A central task för the Court is therefore often to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the parties' statements.

The purpose of the paper was to highlight the crime of rape in relation to its specific problems of evidence and to illustrate how the Court's assessment of the evidence occurs. The purpose resulted in the following issues: what circumstances and which rules does the Court consider in their assessment of the evidence in rape cases? Which evidence difficulties are there in rape cases? Is the Court's assessment of the evidence in rape crimes satisfying or can it be improved?

The essays introductory and theoretical parts has been implemented with a traditional right dogmatic approach which means that the current law has been interpreted on the basis of law, its legislative history and practice. The essays later part is of a more practical nature where the material analyzed and processed through a court case study. The study consisted of all district court decisions concerning rape in 2012.

In a total of 169 of the cases, 36 % were dismissed prosecutions. The offenders were in 99 % of the cases men and the victims were in 98 % of the cases women. The cases were divided into three categories with respect to the relationship between the offender and the victim; rape in close relationship, rape of superficial acquaintance and rape of unfamiliar. According to the study, the rape of superficial acquaintance was the most common. All cases where the court has considered plaintiff as non-credible resulted in guilty verdicts and all cases where the court has considered plaintiff's data unreliable resulted in guilty verdicts.

I have reached the following conclusions. The court is relatively free in their assessment of evidence. The ”free trial proof principle” is designed as a general clause and only gives the court an indication of how the assessment of evidence should take place. The court shall consider all that is proven in the case and the difficulties of evidence are often due to the lack of technical evidence and witnesses. It has been suggested lowering the standard of proof required in rape cases in order to increase the conviction rate, something that I'm adverse to. A reduction would seriously endanger the legal certainty. To access the cases that not reach the rape regulations requirement for violence or threats have been proposed an amendment whereby the rule is consent-based. I do not think that this change should be implemented primarily on the grounds that too much focus will end up on the victim and it´s sexuality. I think a lot of the problems and uncertainties surrounding the evidence in rape cases would have been solved if the court wrote better grounds which clearly motivated how the assessment of evidence have been implemented.

The rape legislation has been heavily criticized but I think it is important to distinguish between the legislator's intentions and the judicial application. I think the problem lies in an obscure legal application rather than the lack of legislation and that the problem has been attacked from the wrong direction. I believe that it is important to invest in quality rather than quantity. Instead of focusing on increasing the percentage of conviction of rape, focus should lie on the evaluation of evidence in rape cases and that it is carried out in the most correct and legally certain manner as possible. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olsson, Frida LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Structured assessment of evidence or pure guessing? A study of judgements from the swedish district courts regarding rape in 2012
course
JURM02 20132
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
tingsrättsavgöranden, tingsrätt, rättsfall, bevisning, bevisvärdering, sexualbrott, våldtäkt, straffrätt, criminal law, 2012, samtycke, rättsfallsstudie
language
Swedish
id
4230849
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 14:23:23
date last changed
2014-02-17 14:56:58
@misc{4230849,
  abstract     = {The Courts assessment of the evidence, to evaluate facts in a case, is one of the most essential steps in the administration of justice. The assessment of evidence is regulated mainly by the ”free proof of principle trial” in chapter 35 § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure . The regulation is designed as a general clause, leaving a relatively large scope for the Court to implement its assessment of the evidence.

Rape is regulated in chapter 6 § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and it´s a crime that causes problems of proof. The reasons are the lack of technical evidence and witnesses. The evidence often consists solely of the plaintiff and the defendant's inconsistent statements. The Supreme Court has in case law stated that the fact that the evidence in rape cases mainly consists of plaintiff's statement does not preclude that the evidence can be considered sufficient for a conviction. A central task för the Court is therefore often to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the parties' statements.

The purpose of the paper was to highlight the crime of rape in relation to its specific problems of evidence and to illustrate how the Court's assessment of the evidence occurs. The purpose resulted in the following issues: what circumstances and which rules does the Court consider in their assessment of the evidence in rape cases? Which evidence difficulties are there in rape cases? Is the Court's assessment of the evidence in rape crimes satisfying or can it be improved?

The essays introductory and theoretical parts has been implemented with a traditional right dogmatic approach which means that the current law has been interpreted on the basis of law, its legislative history and practice. The essays later part is of a more practical nature where the material analyzed and processed through a court case study. The study consisted of all district court decisions concerning rape in 2012.

In a total of 169 of the cases, 36 % were dismissed prosecutions. The offenders were in 99 % of the cases men and the victims were in 98 % of the cases women. The cases were divided into three categories with respect to the relationship between the offender and the victim; rape in close relationship, rape of superficial acquaintance and rape of unfamiliar. According to the study, the rape of superficial acquaintance was the most common. All cases where the court has considered plaintiff as non-credible resulted in guilty verdicts and all cases where the court has considered plaintiff's data unreliable resulted in guilty verdicts.

I have reached the following conclusions. The court is relatively free in their assessment of evidence. The ”free trial proof principle” is designed as a general clause and only gives the court an indication of how the assessment of evidence should take place. The court shall consider all that is proven in the case and the difficulties of evidence are often due to the lack of technical evidence and witnesses. It has been suggested lowering the standard of proof required in rape cases in order to increase the conviction rate, something that I'm adverse to. A reduction would seriously endanger the legal certainty. To access the cases that not reach the rape regulations requirement for violence or threats have been proposed an amendment whereby the rule is consent-based. I do not think that this change should be implemented primarily on the grounds that too much focus will end up on the victim and it´s sexuality. I think a lot of the problems and uncertainties surrounding the evidence in rape cases would have been solved if the court wrote better grounds which clearly motivated how the assessment of evidence have been implemented.

The rape legislation has been heavily criticized but I think it is important to distinguish between the legislator's intentions and the judicial application. I think the problem lies in an obscure legal application rather than the lack of legislation and that the problem has been attacked from the wrong direction. I believe that it is important to invest in quality rather than quantity. Instead of focusing on increasing the percentage of conviction of rape, focus should lie on the evaluation of evidence in rape cases and that it is carried out in the most correct and legally certain manner as possible.},
  author       = {Olsson, Frida},
  keyword      = {tingsrättsavgöranden,tingsrätt,rättsfall,bevisning,bevisvärdering,sexualbrott,våldtäkt,straffrätt,criminal law,2012,samtycke,rättsfallsstudie},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Strukturerad bevisvärdering eller ren gissningslek? En studie av tingsrätternas bevisvärdering vid våldtäkt år 2012},
  year         = {2013},
}