Advanced

Fri bevisprövning eller förgiftad frukt? - Om tillåtligheten av olagligt anskaffad bevisning enligt svensk rätt och EKMR sett i ljuset av amerikansk rätts exkluderingsregel

Martinsson, Niclas LU (2015) JURM02 20151
Department of Law
Abstract
In Sweden, the free assessment of evidence has been a strong principle of procedural law ever since the legal proof theory of the inquisition was abandoned. As a consequence, no exclusionary rule has developed, which means that all evidence has to be admitted at trial, regardless of the way in which it has been gained. In contrast, American law has developed a distinct exclusionary rule. Consequently all evidence that is gathered with illegal methods has to be excluded at trial since the use of such evidence would deprive the defendant of his or her constitutional rights. This is also true, with regards to derivative evidence that is a product of the illegally produced evidence, under a legal institute that has become known as “the fruit... (More)
In Sweden, the free assessment of evidence has been a strong principle of procedural law ever since the legal proof theory of the inquisition was abandoned. As a consequence, no exclusionary rule has developed, which means that all evidence has to be admitted at trial, regardless of the way in which it has been gained. In contrast, American law has developed a distinct exclusionary rule. Consequently all evidence that is gathered with illegal methods has to be excluded at trial since the use of such evidence would deprive the defendant of his or her constitutional rights. This is also true, with regards to derivative evidence that is a product of the illegally produced evidence, under a legal institute that has become known as “the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”.

It could be argued that the different ways in which evidence is handled in Sweden versus USA express different views concerning the question of what ought to be the purpose of a criminal process. While the system with free assessment of evidence serves to find the material truth, it could be argued that it – when admitting illegal evidence – does so, at the cost of judicial integrity and at the cost of due process. Conversely, it could be claimed the US exclusionary rules cherish the values of due process, but at the expense of an effective crime control.

Having studied both systems and the way in which they relate to the question of that ought to be the purpose of the criminal procedure this essay will direct its attention towards one case from the Swedish Supreme Court, NJA 2011 p. 638, and one case from the European Court of Human Rights, Gafgen v. Germany. Both cases shed light on the question of whether or not derivative evidence should be admitted at trial. The author ultimately argues that these cases indicate there is a subtle tendency towards a change with regards to the perception of how illegally gathered evidence should be treated. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I Sverige har den fria bevisprövningen varit en stark processrättslig princip alltsedan inkvisitionens legala bevisteori övergavs. En konsekvens av den fria bevisprövningen är att några förbud mot vilka bevis som får användas emot en tilltalad inte får uppställas, detta gäller oavsett anskaffningssättet. I kontrast finns inom den amerikanska rätten en utarbetad exkluderingsregel som innebär att bevis som anskaffats på ett olagligt sätt måste exkluderas då ett användande av dem skulle kränka den tilltalades konstitutionella rättigheter; detta gäller även för bevis som, i ett efterföljande led, kan härledas från det som ursprungligen anskaffats olagligt.

Exkluderandet av andraledsbevisning är ett rättsliga institut som inom amerikansk... (More)
I Sverige har den fria bevisprövningen varit en stark processrättslig princip alltsedan inkvisitionens legala bevisteori övergavs. En konsekvens av den fria bevisprövningen är att några förbud mot vilka bevis som får användas emot en tilltalad inte får uppställas, detta gäller oavsett anskaffningssättet. I kontrast finns inom den amerikanska rätten en utarbetad exkluderingsregel som innebär att bevis som anskaffats på ett olagligt sätt måste exkluderas då ett användande av dem skulle kränka den tilltalades konstitutionella rättigheter; detta gäller även för bevis som, i ett efterföljande led, kan härledas från det som ursprungligen anskaffats olagligt.

Exkluderandet av andraledsbevisning är ett rättsliga institut som inom amerikansk rätt för ”frukten från det förgiftade trädet”. De båda bevishanteringssystemen kan hävdas ge uttryck för olika synsätt avseende syftet med en straffrättslig process. Medan den fria bevisprövningen tjänar till att finna den materiella sanningen genom att inte under några omständigheter exkludera bevisning oavsett anskaffningssätt kan det också hävdas att rättssäkerheten äventyras. Motsatsvis kan argumenteras att det amerikanska systemet med exkluderingsregler värnar mer om rättssäkerheten, men på bekostnad av en effektiv brottsbekämpning.

Mot bakgrund av ett studium av såväl den fria bevisprövningen som den amerikanska lösningen med bevisexkludering och doktrinen om frukten från det förgiftade trädet och hur dessa förhåller sig till frågan om vad som är syftet med en straffprocess ägnar uppsatsen sedermera sin uppmärksamhet åt praxis från HD och Europadomstolen. I såväl avgörandet NJA 2011 s. 638 som i Gäfgen mot Tyskland aktualiseras en diskussion om tillåtligheten av bevisning som är resultatet av ett olagligt polisagerande. Författaren menar att dessa fall tyder på att det håller på att ske en förändring i synen på hur sådana andrahandsbevis ska hanteras. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Martinsson, Niclas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Free assessment of evidence or poisonous fruit? - On admissibility of illegally obtained evidence according to swedish law and the ECHR, viewed in light of the american exclusionary rule
course
JURM02 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Bevis, bevisförbud, bevisexkludering, processrätt, funktion, frukten från det förgiftade trädet, bevisprövning, bevisföring, bevisvärdering, amerikansk rätt
language
Swedish
id
5432480
date added to LUP
2015-07-02 17:21:10
date last changed
2015-07-02 17:21:10
@misc{5432480,
  abstract     = {In Sweden, the free assessment of evidence has been a strong principle of procedural law ever since the legal proof theory of the inquisition was abandoned. As a consequence, no exclusionary rule has developed, which means that all evidence has to be admitted at trial, regardless of the way in which it has been gained. In contrast, American law has developed a distinct exclusionary rule. Consequently all evidence that is gathered with illegal methods has to be excluded at trial since the use of such evidence would deprive the defendant of his or her constitutional rights. This is also true, with regards to derivative evidence that is a product of the illegally produced evidence, under a legal institute that has become known as “the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine”. 

It could be argued that the different ways in which evidence is handled in Sweden versus USA express different views concerning the question of what ought to be the purpose of a criminal process. While the system with free assessment of evidence serves to find the material truth, it could be argued that it – when admitting illegal evidence – does so, at the cost of judicial integrity and at the cost of due process. Conversely, it could be claimed the US exclusionary rules cherish the values of due process, but at the expense of an effective crime control.

Having studied both systems and the way in which they relate to the question of that ought to be the purpose of the criminal procedure this essay will direct its attention towards one case from the Swedish Supreme Court, NJA 2011 p. 638, and one case from the European Court of Human Rights, Gafgen v. Germany. Both cases shed light on the question of whether or not derivative evidence should be admitted at trial. The author ultimately argues that these cases indicate there is a subtle tendency towards a change with regards to the perception of how illegally gathered evidence should be treated.},
  author       = {Martinsson, Niclas},
  keyword      = {Bevis,bevisförbud,bevisexkludering,processrätt,funktion,frukten från det förgiftade trädet,bevisprövning,bevisföring,bevisvärdering,amerikansk rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Fri bevisprövning eller förgiftad frukt? - Om tillåtligheten av olagligt anskaffad bevisning enligt svensk rätt och EKMR sett i ljuset av amerikansk rätts exkluderingsregel},
  year         = {2015},
}