Erkännandets betydelse i brottmålsprocessen
(2014) LAGF03 20141Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda vilken betydelse erkännandet har i brottmålsprocessen i Sverige. Uppsatsens fyra frågeställningar utgör ramen, och innefattar såväl en allmän del om bevisprövning som en djupdykning i erkännandets prövning och styrka som bevis. I uppsatsen används huvudsakligen rättsdogmatisk metod. Dock görs även en undersökning av sex omtalade tingsrättsdomar för att se hur praxis tillämpas i tingsrätterna. Då området i stort sett är oreglerat ligger fokus framför allt på förarbeten, praxis och doktrin.
I Sverige råder principen om fri bevisprövning, vilket stadgas i 35 kap. 1 § RB. Denna princip innebär bland annat att bevisvärderingen inte får begränsas genom legala regler. Bevisbördan ligger på åklagaren i... (More) - Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda vilken betydelse erkännandet har i brottmålsprocessen i Sverige. Uppsatsens fyra frågeställningar utgör ramen, och innefattar såväl en allmän del om bevisprövning som en djupdykning i erkännandets prövning och styrka som bevis. I uppsatsen används huvudsakligen rättsdogmatisk metod. Dock görs även en undersökning av sex omtalade tingsrättsdomar för att se hur praxis tillämpas i tingsrätterna. Då området i stort sett är oreglerat ligger fokus framför allt på förarbeten, praxis och doktrin.
I Sverige råder principen om fri bevisprövning, vilket stadgas i 35 kap. 1 § RB. Denna princip innebär bland annat att bevisvärderingen inte får begränsas genom legala regler. Bevisbördan ligger på åklagaren i brottmål, detta för att motverka materiellt oriktiga domar. Den som bär bevisbördan står risken för att bevisningen inte når upp till beviskravet, vilket har formulerats av Högsta domstolen som ”utom rimligt tvivel”. Den rådande uppfattningen verkar vara att beviskravet står fast, däremot kan utredningskravet variera beroende på brottets grovhet.
Erkännandet regleras i 35 kap. 3 § RB. Prövningen av ett erkännande sker i två steg, där domstolen först prövar om det rör sig om ett erkännande överhuvudtaget, och sedan erkännandets vederhäftighet. Prövningens omfattning påverkas av brottets grovhet. Vid lindrigare brott är prövningen inte särskilt omfattande, medan utredningskravet är starkt vid grova brott. Vid lindriga brott kan ett erkännande ensamt räcka för en fällande tom, medan det vid grova brott krävs minst samverkande bevisning. Erkännandets betydelse sattes på prov i Quick-målen där sex fällande domar baserades i stort sett endast på erkännanden.
De främsta slutsatserna som dras är att både prövningen av erkännandet och styrkan av erkännandet som bevis varierar beroende på brottets grovhet. Vidare ifrågasätts vissa av de kriterier som används vid värderingen av erkännanden. Slutligen konstateras att tingsrätterna i Quick-målen har följt rådande praxis och således inte kan klandras för de felaktigt utfärdade domarna. (Less) - Abstract
- This essay aims to study the importance of confessions in Swedish criminal law procedure. The essay consists of a general overview of the court’s evaluation of evidence as well as an examination of how the courts perceive confessions and the strength of a confession as evidence. Six renowned district court rulings have been analyzed to see how the law is applied. Since this area is largely unregulated by law, the focus is mainly on preparatory work, judicial practice and doctrine.
Sweden practices the principle of free evaluation of evidence, Chapter 35 1 § Swedish code of judicial procedure. This principle means that the evaluation of evidence cannot be restricted by legal rules. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in... (More) - This essay aims to study the importance of confessions in Swedish criminal law procedure. The essay consists of a general overview of the court’s evaluation of evidence as well as an examination of how the courts perceive confessions and the strength of a confession as evidence. Six renowned district court rulings have been analyzed to see how the law is applied. Since this area is largely unregulated by law, the focus is mainly on preparatory work, judicial practice and doctrine.
Sweden practices the principle of free evaluation of evidence, Chapter 35 1 § Swedish code of judicial procedure. This principle means that the evaluation of evidence cannot be restricted by legal rules. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in criminal cases, which helps prevent miscarriage of justice. The one carrying the burden of proof runs the risk of the evidence falling short of the standard of evidence, which has been formulated by the Swedish Supreme Court as "beyond reasonable doubt". The prevailing view seems to be that the standard of evidence is uniform; however, the investigation requirement may vary depending on the level of the crime.
The confession is regulated by Chapter 35 3§ Swedish code of judicial procedure. The examination of a confession occurs in two steps. First the court considers whether the defendant’s statement should be considered as a confession at all, and then whether the confession can be trusted. The scope of the examination is affected by the seriousness of the crime. The examinations of lesser crimes are not very extensive, while felonies require extensive examinations. In lesser crimes, a confession alone could suffice for a conviction, while in felonies additional evidence is required in order to convict. In the Quick-trials six convictions were based largely on confessions which later turned out to be false. The trials showed the importance of evaluating the truthfulness of confessions.
The main conclusions drawn are that both the examination procedure as well as the strength that confessions carries as evidence varies depending on the level of the crime. Furthermore the reasonableness of some of the criteria used in the evaluation of confessions are questioned. Finally, it is concluded that the district courts in the Quick-trials followed established practice and thus cannot be blamed for miscarriage of justice. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4449730
- author
- Sampallo, Sebastian LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, Straffprocessrätt, Erkännanden
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4449730
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-17 14:03:42
- date last changed
- 2014-06-17 14:03:42
@misc{4449730,
abstract = {{This essay aims to study the importance of confessions in Swedish criminal law procedure. The essay consists of a general overview of the court’s evaluation of evidence as well as an examination of how the courts perceive confessions and the strength of a confession as evidence. Six renowned district court rulings have been analyzed to see how the law is applied. Since this area is largely unregulated by law, the focus is mainly on preparatory work, judicial practice and doctrine.
Sweden practices the principle of free evaluation of evidence, Chapter 35 1 § Swedish code of judicial procedure. This principle means that the evaluation of evidence cannot be restricted by legal rules. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in criminal cases, which helps prevent miscarriage of justice. The one carrying the burden of proof runs the risk of the evidence falling short of the standard of evidence, which has been formulated by the Swedish Supreme Court as "beyond reasonable doubt". The prevailing view seems to be that the standard of evidence is uniform; however, the investigation requirement may vary depending on the level of the crime.
The confession is regulated by Chapter 35 3§ Swedish code of judicial procedure. The examination of a confession occurs in two steps. First the court considers whether the defendant’s statement should be considered as a confession at all, and then whether the confession can be trusted. The scope of the examination is affected by the seriousness of the crime. The examinations of lesser crimes are not very extensive, while felonies require extensive examinations. In lesser crimes, a confession alone could suffice for a conviction, while in felonies additional evidence is required in order to convict. In the Quick-trials six convictions were based largely on confessions which later turned out to be false. The trials showed the importance of evaluating the truthfulness of confessions.
The main conclusions drawn are that both the examination procedure as well as the strength that confessions carries as evidence varies depending on the level of the crime. Furthermore the reasonableness of some of the criteria used in the evaluation of confessions are questioned. Finally, it is concluded that the district courts in the Quick-trials followed established practice and thus cannot be blamed for miscarriage of justice.}},
author = {{Sampallo, Sebastian}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Erkännandets betydelse i brottmålsprocessen}},
year = {{2014}},
}