Provokativa åtgärder
(2014) LAGF03 20141Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- För att bekämpa den organiserade brottsligheten används, i Sverige och internationellt, provokativa åtgärder. Det innebär att en person provoceras av staten att begå brott eller att presentera bevis för tidigare begångna brott. Det föreligger dock en risk för att provokationer får personer att begå brott som de annars inte hade begått. Åtgärderna har då lett till att brott har tillförts samhället istället för att samhället skyddats från brott. Det är därför nödvändigt att skilja tillåtna provokationer från otillåtna. Uppsatsen ämnar åskådliggöra de problem som omgärdar provokativa åtgärder.
Sverige är skyldigt att följa EKMR, och provokationer kan strida mot artikel 6.1 EKMR. Sedan 1998 har ett antal fall avgjorts i Europadomstolen.... (More) - För att bekämpa den organiserade brottsligheten används, i Sverige och internationellt, provokativa åtgärder. Det innebär att en person provoceras av staten att begå brott eller att presentera bevis för tidigare begångna brott. Det föreligger dock en risk för att provokationer får personer att begå brott som de annars inte hade begått. Åtgärderna har då lett till att brott har tillförts samhället istället för att samhället skyddats från brott. Det är därför nödvändigt att skilja tillåtna provokationer från otillåtna. Uppsatsen ämnar åskådliggöra de problem som omgärdar provokativa åtgärder.
Sverige är skyldigt att följa EKMR, och provokationer kan strida mot artikel 6.1 EKMR. Sedan 1998 har ett antal fall avgjorts i Europadomstolen. Europadomstolen har fastslagit att en provokation undergräver den provocerades rätt till en rättvis rättegång om provokationen får någon att begå ett brott som utan den inte hade begåtts, och användandet av provokationen varit ogrundat.
I svensk rätt är provokativa åtgärder inte reglerade i lag. Europadomstolens praxis finns dock inkorporerad i ett avgörande från HD 2007. Bruket av otillåtna provokationer kan i de allvarligaste fallen innebära att åtalet lämnas utan bifall. För att avgöra provokationernas tillåtlighet används, utöver Europadomstolens regler, ett antal principer som arbetats fram genom bl.a. utlåtanden från JO.
För att avgöra om brott ändå begåtts ser rättssystemet till den provocerades person och utförandets metod. Kritiker menar att bedömningarna kan bli godtyckliga och rättsosäkra. Det kan även anses ifrågasättas om det är värdigt av rättsväsendet att använda metoder som är bedrägeriliknande. Ofta framhålls att det inte är statens roll att locka sina medborgare till brott. (Less) - Abstract
- In order to fight organized crime, provocative investigative measures are widely used in Sweden and abroad. This means that a person is provoked by the state to commit a crime or to present evidence of past crimes. However, there is a risk that the police causes people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not have committed. The measures have then led to crimes being added to the community, instead of protecting the community from crime. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the permissible provocative investigative measures from the impermissible. This paper intends to illustrate the problems surrounding provocative investigative measures.
Sweden is obliged to comply with the ECHR, and the measures may violate Article 6(1)... (More) - In order to fight organized crime, provocative investigative measures are widely used in Sweden and abroad. This means that a person is provoked by the state to commit a crime or to present evidence of past crimes. However, there is a risk that the police causes people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not have committed. The measures have then led to crimes being added to the community, instead of protecting the community from crime. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the permissible provocative investigative measures from the impermissible. This paper intends to illustrate the problems surrounding provocative investigative measures.
Sweden is obliged to comply with the ECHR, and the measures may violate Article 6(1) ECHR. A number of cases have been brought up to the European Court since 1998. The European Court has held that provocative investigative measures undermines the right to a fair trial if the method causes someone to commit a crime that without it would not have been committed, and the use of the method was unfounded.
In the Swedish legal system provocative investigative measures are not regulated by law. However, the precedence from the ECHR is incorporated in a ruling in the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007. Impermissible measures can in the most serious cases lead to the indictment being dismissed. To determine whether the measure is permissible or not, a number of principles have been established. These are based on, inter alia, verdicts from the Swedish Ombudsman.
To determine whether or not the crime would have occurred anyway, the legal system examines the persona of the provoked together with the way in which the measure was performed. Critics argue that the assessments can become arbitrary and discriminating. It may also be deemed unworthy of the state to use methods that are similar to fraud. It is often emphasized that it is not in the government’s place to lure its citizens into criminality. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4446762
- author
- Peterson, Marie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Komparativ rätt, processrätt, straffrätt, brottsprovokation, bevisprovokation, provokativa åtgärder, okonventionella metoder, rättssäkerhet, EKMR
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4446762
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-17 10:18:37
- date last changed
- 2014-06-17 10:18:37
@misc{4446762,
abstract = {{In order to fight organized crime, provocative investigative measures are widely used in Sweden and abroad. This means that a person is provoked by the state to commit a crime or to present evidence of past crimes. However, there is a risk that the police causes people to commit crimes that they otherwise would not have committed. The measures have then led to crimes being added to the community, instead of protecting the community from crime. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the permissible provocative investigative measures from the impermissible. This paper intends to illustrate the problems surrounding provocative investigative measures.
Sweden is obliged to comply with the ECHR, and the measures may violate Article 6(1) ECHR. A number of cases have been brought up to the European Court since 1998. The European Court has held that provocative investigative measures undermines the right to a fair trial if the method causes someone to commit a crime that without it would not have been committed, and the use of the method was unfounded.
In the Swedish legal system provocative investigative measures are not regulated by law. However, the precedence from the ECHR is incorporated in a ruling in the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007. Impermissible measures can in the most serious cases lead to the indictment being dismissed. To determine whether the measure is permissible or not, a number of principles have been established. These are based on, inter alia, verdicts from the Swedish Ombudsman.
To determine whether or not the crime would have occurred anyway, the legal system examines the persona of the provoked together with the way in which the measure was performed. Critics argue that the assessments can become arbitrary and discriminating. It may also be deemed unworthy of the state to use methods that are similar to fraud. It is often emphasized that it is not in the government’s place to lure its citizens into criminality.}},
author = {{Peterson, Marie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Provokativa åtgärder}},
year = {{2014}},
}