Advanced

Hur bör rätten pröva bevisning? – En straffprocessrättslig analys av NJA 2015 s. 702 och juridisk doktrin

Persson Kärki, Kristofer LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sedan tillkomsten av den nuvarande rättegångsbalken på 1940-talet har utgångspunkten i svensk rätt varit att bevisprövningen ska vara fri och inte styrd av legala normer. Detta hindrade emellertid inte lagstiftaren från att i förarbetena ställa upp krav på att bevisprövningen skulle vara objektiv och analytisk. Som en följd därav utvecklades ett antal bevisprövningsmetoder i den juridiska doktrinen. Det senaste tillskottet av dessa är den av Christian Diesen utarbetade hypotesmetoden, som enligt sin upphovsman har stöd i HD:s praxis.

Under andra halvan av 2015 avkunnade HD dom i det vardagligt kallade balkongfallet. Däri presenterar domstolen en bevisprövningsmetod som är avsedd att användas i brottmål. Föresatsen i denna uppsats har... (More)
Sedan tillkomsten av den nuvarande rättegångsbalken på 1940-talet har utgångspunkten i svensk rätt varit att bevisprövningen ska vara fri och inte styrd av legala normer. Detta hindrade emellertid inte lagstiftaren från att i förarbetena ställa upp krav på att bevisprövningen skulle vara objektiv och analytisk. Som en följd därav utvecklades ett antal bevisprövningsmetoder i den juridiska doktrinen. Det senaste tillskottet av dessa är den av Christian Diesen utarbetade hypotesmetoden, som enligt sin upphovsman har stöd i HD:s praxis.

Under andra halvan av 2015 avkunnade HD dom i det vardagligt kallade balkongfallet. Däri presenterar domstolen en bevisprövningsmetod som är avsedd att användas i brottmål. Föresatsen i denna uppsats har varit att beskriva den gällande rätten såsom den såg ut före HD:s dom för att sedan kontrastera den med den bevisprövningsmetod som utvecklats av HD. För att kunna tolka de allmänna uttalanden om bevisning i domen har en omfattande analys skett av praxis, juridisk doktrin och de faktiska omständigheterna i fallet.

I HD:s bevisprövningsmetod finns ett antal nyheter som syftar till att åstadkomma en strukturerad bevisvärdering. Inledningsvis ska rätten vid granskning av det samlade bevismaterialet urskilja de bevisfakta som har betydelse för bevistemat. I samband därmed kan bevisning som bedöms vara mindre viktig läggas åt sidan. I uppsatsen har det diskuterats om det räcker att bevisfaktumet är relevant för bedömningen eller om det därtill också måste vara tillförlitligt. Någon säker slutsats härvidlag har inte kunnat dras. En annan nyhet i HD:s metod är att bevisningen sammanvägs i två olika steg. Första gången prövas den mot ett positivt beviskrav och andra gången mot ett negativt.

Därefter sker en jämförelse mellan hypotesmetoden och HD:s bevisprövningsmetod för att utröna vilken metod som är att föredra för att åstadkomma materiellt riktiga domar. Här skiljer hypotesmetoden ut sig eftersom den endast prövar bevisningen gentemot ett negativt beviskrav, vilket kan leda till att bevisningen som utgör stöd för gärningsbeskrivningen inte granskas i tillräcklig omfattning. En annan skillnad är att HD:s metod sovrar i bevismaterialet medan hypotesmetoden innebär att bevisningen delas upp i kategorier. I komplexa och omfattande mål kan en bortsortering vara en fördel, men risken finns givetvis att värdet av resterande bevisning blir antingen för högt eller för lågt.

Det har under arbetets gång inte varit möjligt att dra någon slutsats om vilken bevisprövningsmetod som generellt sett är att föredra, eftersom de tillgodoser kravet på materiell riktighet på olika sätt. Klart torde emellertid vara att det är bättre att använda någon av metoderna än ingen alls. (Less)
Abstract
Since the creation of the present Code of Judicial Procedure in the 1940s the basis in Swedish law has been a free sifting of evidence, which is not governed by legal norms. This, however, did not prevent the legislator from demanding in the preparatory works that the sifting of evidence should be objective and analytical. As a consequence thereof, a number of methods for sifting the evidence developed in jurisprudential literature. The latest contribution in this regard is the hypothesis method, developed by Christian Diesen, which according to its originator has support in Supreme Court precedents.

During the second half of 2015 the Supreme Court delivered judgement in what colloquially has been referred to as the Balcony Case.... (More)
Since the creation of the present Code of Judicial Procedure in the 1940s the basis in Swedish law has been a free sifting of evidence, which is not governed by legal norms. This, however, did not prevent the legislator from demanding in the preparatory works that the sifting of evidence should be objective and analytical. As a consequence thereof, a number of methods for sifting the evidence developed in jurisprudential literature. The latest contribution in this regard is the hypothesis method, developed by Christian Diesen, which according to its originator has support in Supreme Court precedents.

During the second half of 2015 the Supreme Court delivered judgement in what colloquially has been referred to as the Balcony Case. Therein the court presents a method for sifting of evidence, which is designed to be used in criminal cases. The intention of this thesis has been to describe established law as it looked before the Supreme Court judgement, in order to thereafter contrast it with the method for sifting of evidence developed by the Supreme Court. In order to interpret the general statements about evidence in the judgement, an extensive analysis of precedents, jurisprudential literature and the facts of the case has been carried out.

In the Supreme Court method for sifting of evidence there are a number of novelties, which aim at bringing about a structured evaluation of evidence. Initially, when the court examines the assembled evidence, it should detect those evidentiary facts that are of significance in relation to the theme of proof. In this connection, evidence that is considered less important can be set aside. In the thesis it has been discussed if it is enough that the evidentiary fact is relevant in the making of the judgement, or if it has to be reliable as well. It has in this respect not been possible to draw a certain conclusion. Another innovation in the Supreme Court method is that the evidence is brought together in two different steps. The first time it is examined in relation to a positive evidentiary requirement and the second time towards a negative one.

After that a comparison between the hypothesis method and the Supreme Court method is made in order to find out which method that is preferable when it comes to bringing about materially correct judgements. Here, the hypothesis method differs, since it only examines the evidence in relation to a negative evidentiary requirement, which can pose a risk that evidence in support of the statement of the criminal act is not scrutinized enough. Another difference is that the Supreme Court method sorts out evidence, whereas the hypothesis method implies that the evidence is divided up into categories. In complex and comprehensive cases sorting out can be an advantage, but the risk is of course that the remaining evidence is over- or underestimated.

In the course of this thesis it has not been possible to draw a conclusion about which method for sifting of evidence that generally is preferable, since they satisfy the demand for materially correct judgements in different ways. It seems however self-evident that it is preferable to use any method than no one at all. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Persson Kärki, Kristofer LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
How should the court examine evidence in criminal cases? – An analysis of NJA 2015 s. 702 and jurisprudential literature
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
8874174
date added to LUP
2016-06-14 11:18:46
date last changed
2016-06-14 11:18:46
@misc{8874174,
  abstract     = {Since the creation of the present Code of Judicial Procedure in the 1940s the basis in Swedish law has been a free sifting of evidence, which is not governed by legal norms. This, however, did not prevent the legislator from demanding in the preparatory works that the sifting of evidence should be objective and analytical. As a consequence thereof, a number of methods for sifting the evidence developed in jurisprudential literature. The latest contribution in this regard is the hypothesis method, developed by Christian Diesen, which according to its originator has support in Supreme Court precedents. 

During the second half of 2015 the Supreme Court delivered judgement in what colloquially has been referred to as the Balcony Case. Therein the court presents a method for sifting of evidence, which is designed to be used in criminal cases. The intention of this thesis has been to describe established law as it looked before the Supreme Court judgement, in order to thereafter contrast it with the method for sifting of evidence developed by the Supreme Court. In order to interpret the general statements about evidence in the judgement, an extensive analysis of precedents, jurisprudential literature and the facts of the case has been carried out.

In the Supreme Court method for sifting of evidence there are a number of novelties, which aim at bringing about a structured evaluation of evidence. Initially, when the court examines the assembled evidence, it should detect those evidentiary facts that are of significance in relation to the theme of proof. In this connection, evidence that is considered less important can be set aside. In the thesis it has been discussed if it is enough that the evidentiary fact is relevant in the making of the judgement, or if it has to be reliable as well. It has in this respect not been possible to draw a certain conclusion. Another innovation in the Supreme Court method is that the evidence is brought together in two different steps. The first time it is examined in relation to a positive evidentiary requirement and the second time towards a negative one.

After that a comparison between the hypothesis method and the Supreme Court method is made in order to find out which method that is preferable when it comes to bringing about materially correct judgements. Here, the hypothesis method differs, since it only examines the evidence in relation to a negative evidentiary requirement, which can pose a risk that evidence in support of the statement of the criminal act is not scrutinized enough. Another difference is that the Supreme Court method sorts out evidence, whereas the hypothesis method implies that the evidence is divided up into categories. In complex and comprehensive cases sorting out can be an advantage, but the risk is of course that the remaining evidence is over- or underestimated.

In the course of this thesis it has not been possible to draw a conclusion about which method for sifting of evidence that generally is preferable, since they satisfy the demand for materially correct judgements in different ways. It seems however self-evident that it is preferable to use any method than no one at all.},
  author       = {Persson Kärki, Kristofer},
  keyword      = {straffrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Hur bör rätten pröva bevisning? – En straffprocessrättslig analys av NJA 2015 s. 702 och juridisk doktrin},
  year         = {2016},
}