Advanced

Avdrag på fängelsestraff för tid i häkte med restriktioner - strafflindring eller strafftidsförkortning?

Boeryd, Emma LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den här uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka och analysera regleringen kring avdrag för tid i häkte med restriktioner utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. Utgångspunkten i svensk rätt är att avdrag för tid i häkte ges med en dag per dag i häktet enligt strafftidslagen. Detta avdrag är obligatoriskt och ges efter det att dom har meddelats. Häktningstiden tillgodoräknas den dömde såsom verkställighet av påföljd och kan således sägas utgöra en del av straffet. Det är kriminalvården som ansvarar för att avräkning sker och hänsyn kan inte tas till omständigheter i det enskilda fallet. Tidigare var avdraget enligt strafftidslagen det enda avdrag som kunde ges, men sedan HD:s avgörande i NJA 2015 s. 769 finns det möjlighet för domstolar att beakta... (More)
Den här uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka och analysera regleringen kring avdrag för tid i häkte med restriktioner utifrån ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. Utgångspunkten i svensk rätt är att avdrag för tid i häkte ges med en dag per dag i häktet enligt strafftidslagen. Detta avdrag är obligatoriskt och ges efter det att dom har meddelats. Häktningstiden tillgodoräknas den dömde såsom verkställighet av påföljd och kan således sägas utgöra en del av straffet. Det är kriminalvården som ansvarar för att avräkning sker och hänsyn kan inte tas till omständigheter i det enskilda fallet. Tidigare var avdraget enligt strafftidslagen det enda avdrag som kunde ges, men sedan HD:s avgörande i NJA 2015 s. 769 finns det möjlighet för domstolar att beakta att den häktade under lång tid varit ålagd restriktioner. Omständigheten ansågs kunna utgöra ett billighetsskäl och berättiga lindrigare straff än vad brottets straffvärde motiverar. I det aktuella målet hade de häktade varit ålagda restriktioner under cirka ett år och på grund av denna omständighet tillerkändes de ett två månader kortare fängelsestraff.

Uppsatsen undersöker underrättsdomar där avdrag har getts för tid i häkte med restriktioner sedan HD:s avgörande. Av denna undersökning framgår att avdragen har getts på olika sätt. För det första har det krävts olika lång häktningstid med restriktioner för att omständigheten ska kunna beaktas som billighetsskäl. I ett fall ansågs inte en sex månader lång häktningstid med restriktioner berättiga till avdrag, medan tre och en halv månad ansågs tillräckligt i ett annat. För det andra visar undersökningen att det inte finns någon enhetlig praxis kring hur stort avdraget ska vara. I ett av de under-sökta målen tolkades NJA 2015 s. 769 som en formel där häkte med restriktioner i ett år berättigade två månaders avdrag och en sex månader lång häktningstid med restriktioner berättigade en månads avdrag. I de allra flesta fall har domstolen endast beaktat att den häktade varit ålagd restriktioner, men det framgår inte hur stort avdrag som faktiskt har getts. Framställningens rättsfallsanalys visar således att nuvarande reglering, där avdrag för tid i häkte med restriktioner ges i form av strafflindring, medför att lika fall behandlas olika. Med anledning av att domstolarna inte ger avdrag för tid i häkte med restriktioner på ett enhetligt sätt finns det anledning att överväga om avdrag för tid i häkte med restriktioner bör ges på ett annat sätt.

I dansk och norsk rätt är det obligatorisk enligt lag att ge extra avdrag på fängelsestraffet för tid som den häktade har suttit isolerad. I Danmark ges en dags extra avdrag för varje påbörjad tredygnsperiod som den häktade har suttit isolerad och i Norge ges en dags extra avdrag för varje påbörjad två-dygnsperiod. Även i Kanada ges liknande avdrag. Arbetets slutsats är att det finns anledning att överväga att införa bestämmelser som liknar de danska och norska för att avdragen för tid i häkte med restriktioner ska bli mer enhetliga. På så sätt kan det bättre kompenseras för att tid i häkte med restriktioner många gånger är mer påfrestande än vad tid på anstalt är. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to examine and analyse the Swedish regulation regarding deduction for pre-sentence custody with restrictions from the perspective of rule of law. The general rule in Swedish law is that deduction for pre-sentence custody is given with one day on the final sentence for each day spent in custody. This deduction is mandatory. The time in pre-sentence custody is credited the convicted person as time spent in jail. Therefore, time spent in pre-sentence custody can be seen as a part of the prison sentence. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service is responsible for giving these credits. When giving these credits personal circumstances cannot be taken into account. Previously, this deduction was the only deduction... (More)
The purpose of this thesis is to examine and analyse the Swedish regulation regarding deduction for pre-sentence custody with restrictions from the perspective of rule of law. The general rule in Swedish law is that deduction for pre-sentence custody is given with one day on the final sentence for each day spent in custody. This deduction is mandatory. The time in pre-sentence custody is credited the convicted person as time spent in jail. Therefore, time spent in pre-sentence custody can be seen as a part of the prison sentence. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service is responsible for giving these credits. When giving these credits personal circumstances cannot be taken into account. Previously, this deduction was the only deduction that could be given. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in NJA 2015 s. 769 it is possible for courts to take into account that the detainee has been subject for re-strictions during a long time in pre-sentence custody. The circumstance was considered a reason for mitigation of the sentence when the court is meting out of punishment. In the specific case, the detainees were granted a two month shorter prison sentence because they had been subjected to re-strictions for about one year.

The thesis investigates court cases from the lower courts, after the ruling of the Supreme Court, where credits for pre-sentence custody with restrictions have been given. From the survey, it appears that deduction has been given in different ways. Firstly, it has been required different periods in pre-sentence custody with restrictions in order for the circumstance to be taken into account as a reason for mitigation of the sentence. In one of the court cases, a six-month period in pre-sentence custody with restrictions was not considered sufficient to be eligible for deduction, while three and a half months was considered sufficient in another. Secondly, the survey shows that there is no unified practice on how big the deduction should be. In one of the investigated cases, NJA 2015 s. 769, the deduction was interpreted as a mathematic formula where one year in pre-sentence custody with re-strictions justified two months’ deduction and a period of six months with restrictions justified one months’ deduction. In most cases, the court has only taken into account that the detainee has been subject to restrictions, but it does not show how much deduction that has actually been given. The analysis of the cases show that current regulation, where deduction is given as a reason for mitigation of the sentence when the court is meting out of punishment, causes similar cases to be treated differently. Due to the fact that the courts do not deduct time spent in a uniform manner, there is reason to consider whether deductions for time in pre-sentence custody with re-strictions should be given in another way.

In Danish and Norwegian law, it is mandatory to provide extra deduction for time in pre-sentence custody which constitutes solitary confinement. In Denmark, one day’s extra deduction is given for each commenced three-day period in solitary confinement and in Norway, one day’s extra deduction is given for each commenced two-day period. Even in Canada, a similar deduction is given. The conclusion of the work is that there is a reason to con-sider if the Swedish regulation shall be designed in a way similar to the Danish and the Norwegian regulations in order to make the deductions more uniform. With such a regulation, detainees will be better compensated for the fact that time in pre-sentence custody with restrictions many times is harsher than time in jail. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Boeryd, Emma LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Deduction on the Prison Sentence for Time Spent in Pre-Sentence Custody - Mitigation of the Sentence or Shortening of the Final Sentence?
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, criminal law, straffprocessrätt, häktning, restriktioner, avdrag
language
Swedish
id
8907990
date added to LUP
2017-06-13 09:30:21
date last changed
2017-06-13 09:30:21
@misc{8907990,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this thesis is to examine and analyse the Swedish regulation regarding deduction for pre-sentence custody with restrictions from the perspective of rule of law. The general rule in Swedish law is that deduction for pre-sentence custody is given with one day on the final sentence for each day spent in custody. This deduction is mandatory. The time in pre-sentence custody is credited the convicted person as time spent in jail. Therefore, time spent in pre-sentence custody can be seen as a part of the prison sentence. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service is responsible for giving these credits. When giving these credits personal circumstances cannot be taken into account. Previously, this deduction was the only deduction that could be given. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in NJA 2015 s. 769 it is possible for courts to take into account that the detainee has been subject for re-strictions during a long time in pre-sentence custody. The circumstance was considered a reason for mitigation of the sentence when the court is meting out of punishment. In the specific case, the detainees were granted a two month shorter prison sentence because they had been subjected to re-strictions for about one year. 

The thesis investigates court cases from the lower courts, after the ruling of the Supreme Court, where credits for pre-sentence custody with restrictions have been given. From the survey, it appears that deduction has been given in different ways. Firstly, it has been required different periods in pre-sentence custody with restrictions in order for the circumstance to be taken into account as a reason for mitigation of the sentence. In one of the court cases, a six-month period in pre-sentence custody with restrictions was not considered sufficient to be eligible for deduction, while three and a half months was considered sufficient in another. Secondly, the survey shows that there is no unified practice on how big the deduction should be. In one of the investigated cases, NJA 2015 s. 769, the deduction was interpreted as a mathematic formula where one year in pre-sentence custody with re-strictions justified two months’ deduction and a period of six months with restrictions justified one months’ deduction. In most cases, the court has only taken into account that the detainee has been subject to restrictions, but it does not show how much deduction that has actually been given. The analysis of the cases show that current regulation, where deduction is given as a reason for mitigation of the sentence when the court is meting out of punishment, causes similar cases to be treated differently. Due to the fact that the courts do not deduct time spent in a uniform manner, there is reason to consider whether deductions for time in pre-sentence custody with re-strictions should be given in another way.

In Danish and Norwegian law, it is mandatory to provide extra deduction for time in pre-sentence custody which constitutes solitary confinement. In Denmark, one day’s extra deduction is given for each commenced three-day period in solitary confinement and in Norway, one day’s extra deduction is given for each commenced two-day period. Even in Canada, a similar deduction is given. The conclusion of the work is that there is a reason to con-sider if the Swedish regulation shall be designed in a way similar to the Danish and the Norwegian regulations in order to make the deductions more uniform. With such a regulation, detainees will be better compensated for the fact that time in pre-sentence custody with restrictions many times is harsher than time in jail.},
  author       = {Boeryd, Emma},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,criminal law,straffprocessrätt,häktning,restriktioner,avdrag},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Avdrag på fängelsestraff för tid i häkte med restriktioner - strafflindring eller strafftidsförkortning?},
  year         = {2017},
}