Otillbörlig brottsprovokation och principen om fri bevisprövning
(2016) LAGF03 20162Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In order to combat serious crime, Swedish authorities implement provocative actions, including entrapment. Undue entrapment means that someone is provoked to commit a crime that he or she would not otherwise have committed. This is currently prohibited, both under Swedish law and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The purpose of the prohibition of such entrapment is to protect the individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. Earlier, Swedish courts have considered the occurrence of undue entrapment in the judicial process only if they were clearly undue.
In 1995, the European Convention was incorporated into Swedish law. The Convention sets out certain minimum standards which the Contracting States have to observe.... (More) - In order to combat serious crime, Swedish authorities implement provocative actions, including entrapment. Undue entrapment means that someone is provoked to commit a crime that he or she would not otherwise have committed. This is currently prohibited, both under Swedish law and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The purpose of the prohibition of such entrapment is to protect the individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. Earlier, Swedish courts have considered the occurrence of undue entrapment in the judicial process only if they were clearly undue.
In 1995, the European Convention was incorporated into Swedish law. The Convention sets out certain minimum standards which the Contracting States have to observe. Article 6 of the Convention states that everyone has the right to a fair trial. The provision refers to the entire procedure, including how evidence against the accused have been accessed.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has previously expressed that issues regarding admissibility of evidence is a matter of national concern. Therefore, the Court looks to the trial as a whole when it has to decide whether the right to a fair trial has been violated. Thus, a State can allow all evidence it deems appropriate, provided that the State compensates for this in the trial, so that the trial as a whole seems fair. In Sweden there is free sifting of evidence, which means that all relevant evidence can be presented before a court, including evidence obtained by an undue entrapment. However, ECtHR has set up requirements regarding how Contracting States shall take into account the existence of an undue entrapment in a subsequent trial. In the case Teixeira de Castro of 1998, the Court stated that a public interest in investigating crime can not justify that evidence derived from police entrapment were used. As a result of this, the Surpreme Court of Sweden left prosecution without approval regarding provoked offence of handling stolen goods in NJA 2007 s. 1037. The last known judgment from ECtHR regarding entrapment is Furcht against Germany. In this decision from 2015 the Court stated that all evidence obtained through an undue entrapment has to be inadmissible or excluded. These decisions appear to state the limit for when the rules of evidence ceases to be a national concern, and that limit is reached at undue entrapment. According to this, an exception to the Swedish principle of free sifting of evidence seems to emerge, at least as regards undue entrapment. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I syfte att bekämpa grov brottslighet vidtar svenska myndigheter olika provokativa åtgärder, däribland brottsprovokation. Otillbörlig brottsprovokation innebär att någon provoceras att begå ett brott som denne annars inte hade begått. Detta är idag otillåtet, både enligt svensk rätt och enligt Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande fri- och rättigheterna (EKMR). Syftet med ett förbud mot sådana provokationer är att skydda individens grundläggande fri- och rättigheter. Svenska domstolar har tidigare beaktat förekomsten av otillbörliga brottsprovokationer vid straffmätningen i form av strafflindring eller påföljdseftergift endast om de varit uppenbart otillbörliga. År 1995 inkorporerades EKMR i... (More)
- I syfte att bekämpa grov brottslighet vidtar svenska myndigheter olika provokativa åtgärder, däribland brottsprovokation. Otillbörlig brottsprovokation innebär att någon provoceras att begå ett brott som denne annars inte hade begått. Detta är idag otillåtet, både enligt svensk rätt och enligt Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande fri- och rättigheterna (EKMR). Syftet med ett förbud mot sådana provokationer är att skydda individens grundläggande fri- och rättigheter. Svenska domstolar har tidigare beaktat förekomsten av otillbörliga brottsprovokationer vid straffmätningen i form av strafflindring eller påföljdseftergift endast om de varit uppenbart otillbörliga. År 1995 inkorporerades EKMR i svensk rätt. Konventionen ställer upp vissa minimikrav som konventionsstaterna har att leva upp till. Artikel 6 i konventionen stadgar att var och en har rätt till en rättvis rättegång. Bestämmelsen tar sikte på hela förfarandet, inklusive hur bevisning mot den tilltalade åtkommits.
Europadomstolen har tidigare uttalat att frågor om tillåtlighet av bevisning är en nationell angelägenhet och att domstolen ser till rättegången i dess helhet när den har att avgöra huruvida rätten till en rättvis rättegång blivit kränkt. Därmed har en konventionsstat kunnat tillåta all bevisning den finner lämplig, förutsatt att den kompenserar för detta i rättegången, så att den i dess helhet framstår som rättvis. I Sverige råder fri bevisprövning, vilket innebär att all relevant bevisning får förebringas inför domstol, även bevisning som tillkommit i samband med otillbörlig brottsprovokation. Europadomstolen har emellertid ställt upp krav på hur konventionsstaterna ska beakta förekomsten av otillbörlig brottsprovokation i en efterföljande rättsprocess. I avgörandet Teixeira de Castro från 1998 uttalade domstolen att ett allmänt intresse av att utreda brott inte kan motivera att bevisning som härrör ur brottsprovokation används. Till följd härav lämnade HD i NJA 2007 s. 1037 åtal för framprovocerad hälerigärning utan bifall. Det senaste kända avgörandet från Europadomstolen beträffande brottsprovokation är Furcht mot Tyskland. Domstolen uttalar i detta avgörande från 2015 att all bevisning som tillkommit genom otillbörlig brottsprovokation ska avvisas, eller på annat sätt exkluderas. Dessa avgöranden förefaller innebära att gränsen för när bestämmelser om bevisning upphör att vara en nationell angelägenhet, går vid otillbörlig brottsprovokation. Mot bakgrund av detta verkar ett undantag till den svenska principen om fri bevisprövning växa fram, åtminstone beträffande otillbörliga brottsprovokationer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8897459
- author
- Virdeborn, Clara LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Brottsprovokation, Fri bevisprövning, Artikel 6 EKMR, Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8897459
- date added to LUP
- 2017-02-13 20:31:19
- date last changed
- 2017-02-13 20:31:19
@misc{8897459,
abstract = {{In order to combat serious crime, Swedish authorities implement provocative actions, including entrapment. Undue entrapment means that someone is provoked to commit a crime that he or she would not otherwise have committed. This is currently prohibited, both under Swedish law and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The purpose of the prohibition of such entrapment is to protect the individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. Earlier, Swedish courts have considered the occurrence of undue entrapment in the judicial process only if they were clearly undue.
In 1995, the European Convention was incorporated into Swedish law. The Convention sets out certain minimum standards which the Contracting States have to observe. Article 6 of the Convention states that everyone has the right to a fair trial. The provision refers to the entire procedure, including how evidence against the accused have been accessed.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has previously expressed that issues regarding admissibility of evidence is a matter of national concern. Therefore, the Court looks to the trial as a whole when it has to decide whether the right to a fair trial has been violated. Thus, a State can allow all evidence it deems appropriate, provided that the State compensates for this in the trial, so that the trial as a whole seems fair. In Sweden there is free sifting of evidence, which means that all relevant evidence can be presented before a court, including evidence obtained by an undue entrapment. However, ECtHR has set up requirements regarding how Contracting States shall take into account the existence of an undue entrapment in a subsequent trial. In the case Teixeira de Castro of 1998, the Court stated that a public interest in investigating crime can not justify that evidence derived from police entrapment were used. As a result of this, the Surpreme Court of Sweden left prosecution without approval regarding provoked offence of handling stolen goods in NJA 2007 s. 1037. The last known judgment from ECtHR regarding entrapment is Furcht against Germany. In this decision from 2015 the Court stated that all evidence obtained through an undue entrapment has to be inadmissible or excluded. These decisions appear to state the limit for when the rules of evidence ceases to be a national concern, and that limit is reached at undue entrapment. According to this, an exception to the Swedish principle of free sifting of evidence seems to emerge, at least as regards undue entrapment.}},
author = {{Virdeborn, Clara}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Otillbörlig brottsprovokation och principen om fri bevisprövning}},
year = {{2016}},
}