Advanced

Restriktioner vid häktning - En analys av SOU 2016:52 i relation till CPT:s kritik och rekommendationer

Wigen, Leonard LU (2016) LAGF03 20162
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sverige har i över 25 år kritiserats internationellt av bl.a. CPT för den frekventa användningen av restriktioner vid häktning. Forskning har visat att restriktioner vid häktning kan leda till att den misstänktes psykiska hälsa försämras. I förlängningen kan detta negativt påverka dennes möjligheter till att försvara sig. I augusti 2016 publicerades SOU 2016:52 som bland annat behandlar förslag om en minskad restriktionsanvändning. Uppsatsen syftar därför till att utreda i vilken utsträckning SOU 2016:52 svarar mot CPT:s kritik och rekommendationer.

Restriktioner motiveras enligt lagstiftaren av att möjliggöra en effektiv förundersökning. Det är primärt mot bakgrund av omedelbarhetsprincipen, koncentrationsprincipen och... (More)
Sverige har i över 25 år kritiserats internationellt av bl.a. CPT för den frekventa användningen av restriktioner vid häktning. Forskning har visat att restriktioner vid häktning kan leda till att den misstänktes psykiska hälsa försämras. I förlängningen kan detta negativt påverka dennes möjligheter till att försvara sig. I augusti 2016 publicerades SOU 2016:52 som bland annat behandlar förslag om en minskad restriktionsanvändning. Uppsatsen syftar därför till att utreda i vilken utsträckning SOU 2016:52 svarar mot CPT:s kritik och rekommendationer.

Restriktioner motiveras enligt lagstiftaren av att möjliggöra en effektiv förundersökning. Det är primärt mot bakgrund av omedelbarhetsprincipen, koncentrationsprincipen och muntlighetsprincipen som restriktioner finns. Domstolen får enligt dessa principer som utgångspunkt endast grunda sin dom på vad som framkommit under huvudförhandlingen.

Om den misstänkte kan antas försvåra sakens utredning får åklagaren, efter ett generellt tillstånd från domstolen, meddela den häktade enskilda restriktioner.

Förslagen i SOU 2016:52 för en minskad restriktionsanvändning bygger i huvudsak på att domstolen bör besluta om enskilda restriktioner, istället för åklagaren samt att det följaktligen bör lagregleras om att domstolen ska ange skälen för sitt restriktionsbeslut.

Mina slutsatser är att förslagen formellt svarar mot CPT:s kritik och rekommendationer. I praktiken kommer förslagen emellertid endast svara mot CPT:s kritik i viss utsträckning. Detta underbyggs av slutsatserna att restriktionsanvändningen kommer förbli oförändrad vid förundersökningens initiala skede. Vid ett senare skede kommer dock restriktionsanvändningen sannolikt att minska. (Less)
Abstract
For more than 25 years, Sweden has been criticized for its frequent imposition of restrictions on remand prisoners by inter alia, CPT. Recent research shows that restrictions imposed on remand prisoners may have negative effect on their mental health. Ultimately this may result in a degradation in the suspect’s ability to defend him- or herself. In August 2016, SOU 2016:52 on how to reduce the use of restrictions was published. The thesis therefore aims to examine to what extent SOU 2016:52 corresponds to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT.

The legislature legitimizes restrictions due to enable an effective criminal investigation. Restrictions primarily exist because of the immediacy principle, the concentration principle... (More)
For more than 25 years, Sweden has been criticized for its frequent imposition of restrictions on remand prisoners by inter alia, CPT. Recent research shows that restrictions imposed on remand prisoners may have negative effect on their mental health. Ultimately this may result in a degradation in the suspect’s ability to defend him- or herself. In August 2016, SOU 2016:52 on how to reduce the use of restrictions was published. The thesis therefore aims to examine to what extent SOU 2016:52 corresponds to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT.

The legislature legitimizes restrictions due to enable an effective criminal investigation. Restrictions primarily exist because of the immediacy principle, the concentration principle and the oral principle. Consequently, as main rule, the court may only base its decision on what is said during the main hearing. If the prosecutor is given a general permission from the court to impose restrictions on the remand prisoner, the prosecutor may determine which individual restrictions that is to be imposed in each case.

The proposals in SOU 2016:52 regarding how to reduce the use of restrictions are mainly based on a scheme where the court decides on which specific restrictions that is to be imposed. Further, the commission in SOU 2016:52 proposed that the court should be obliged by law to adduce reasons for its decision to impose restrictions.

My conclusions are that the proposals formally correspond to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT. In practice, the proposals will only correspond to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT to a certain extent. This is underpinned by my conclusions that the use of restrictions will remain unchanged at the initial stage of the criminal investigation. At a later stage, however, the use of restrictions will likely reduce. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wigen, Leonard LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20162
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, straffrätt, statsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8897120
date added to LUP
2017-02-13 20:30:44
date last changed
2017-02-13 20:30:44
@misc{8897120,
  abstract     = {For more than 25 years, Sweden has been criticized for its frequent imposition of restrictions on remand prisoners by inter alia, CPT. Recent research shows that restrictions imposed on remand prisoners may have negative effect on their mental health. Ultimately this may result in a degradation in the suspect’s ability to defend him- or herself. In August 2016, SOU 2016:52 on how to reduce the use of restrictions was published. The thesis therefore aims to examine to what extent SOU 2016:52 corresponds to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT.

The legislature legitimizes restrictions due to enable an effective criminal investigation. Restrictions primarily exist because of the immediacy principle, the concentration principle and the oral principle. Consequently, as main rule, the court may only base its decision on what is said during the main hearing. If the prosecutor is given a general permission from the court to impose restrictions on the remand prisoner, the prosecutor may determine which individual restrictions that is to be imposed in each case. 

The proposals in SOU 2016:52 regarding how to reduce the use of restrictions are mainly based on a scheme where the court decides on which specific restrictions that is to be imposed. Further, the commission in SOU 2016:52 proposed that the court should be obliged by law to adduce reasons for its decision to impose restrictions. 

My conclusions are that the proposals formally correspond to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT. In practice, the proposals will only correspond to the criticism and recommendations issued by CPT to a certain extent. This is underpinned by my conclusions that the use of restrictions will remain unchanged at the initial stage of the criminal investigation. At a later stage, however, the use of restrictions will likely reduce.},
  author       = {Wigen, Leonard},
  keyword      = {processrätt,straffrätt,statsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Restriktioner vid häktning - En analys av SOU 2016:52 i relation till CPT:s kritik och rekommendationer},
  year         = {2016},
}