Advanced

Rättvisa – ett lotteri med höga insatser? - Om betydelsen av åklagares åtalsprövning för målsägandens förutsebara tillgång till upprättelse

Eliasson, Nils LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Brotten vållande till kroppsskada eller sjukdom, förtal, förolämpning och egenmäktighet med barn är alla brott mot person för vilka de brottsutredande myndigheterna enbart får fatta lagföringsbeslut om åtal kan anses påkallat ur allmän synpunkt. Begränsningen, som i vissa fall enbart aktualiseras om målsäganden angivit brottet till åtal, innebär att myndigheterna inte får hantera alla fall även om brott antas vara begånget. Bland övriga brott mot person i brottsbalken finns inte någon motsvarande begränsning. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka hur dessa så kallade åtalsprövningsregler påverkar målsägandens tillgång till upprättelse. Uppsatsen är författad med utgångspunkt i principen om förutsebarhet.

Av redogörelsen framgår att... (More)
Brotten vållande till kroppsskada eller sjukdom, förtal, förolämpning och egenmäktighet med barn är alla brott mot person för vilka de brottsutredande myndigheterna enbart får fatta lagföringsbeslut om åtal kan anses påkallat ur allmän synpunkt. Begränsningen, som i vissa fall enbart aktualiseras om målsäganden angivit brottet till åtal, innebär att myndigheterna inte får hantera alla fall även om brott antas vara begånget. Bland övriga brott mot person i brottsbalken finns inte någon motsvarande begränsning. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka hur dessa så kallade åtalsprövningsregler påverkar målsägandens tillgång till upprättelse. Uppsatsen är författad med utgångspunkt i principen om förutsebarhet.

Av redogörelsen framgår att formuleringen, påkallat ur allmän synpunkt, kommit att tolkas mycket snävt av de brottsutredande myndigheterna och att ytterst få ärenden leder till lagföringsbeslut. Av intresse i sammanhanget är därför att den reella makten över formuleringens betydelse i mångt och mycket kommit att förskjutas från lagstiftaren till Åklagarmyndigheten. I uppsatsen argumenteras för att denna maktförskjutning av flera skäl är bekymmersam och att såväl den lagtekniska konstruktionen som Åklagarmyndighetens tillämpning av densamma innebär svårigheter för målsäganden ur ett förutsebarhetsperspektiv.

Om de brottsutredande myndigheterna, efter den särskilda åtalsprövningen, kommer till slutsatsen att gärningen inte är deras sak att hantera är målsäganden lämnad att söka upprättelse på egen hand. Av redogörelsen konstateras att sådana möjligheter finns enligt lag men att lagstiftaren kommit att kombinera dessa med höga krav och förväntningar kopplade till målsägandens kunskapsmässiga eller ekonomiska förmåga. Eftersom gemene man i de flesta fall saknar faktisk möjlighet att uppfylla kraven kan det hävdas att målsägandens reella tillgång till upprättelse avgörs redan genom Åklagarmyndighetens beslut. Det kan därmed påstås att lagstiftaren inte enbart försett myndigheten med den lagstiftande makten utan dessutom, i någon mån, med den dömande. I uppsatsen argumenteras för att tillgången till upprättelse kommit att utvecklas till en klassfråga.

Med hänvisning dels till att målsägandens reella tillgång till upprättelse inte kan anses förutsebar, dels de många brister som den juridiska konstruktionen uppvisar, menar uppsatsförfattaren att systemet bör reformeras. (Less)
Abstract
The offences causing bodily injury or illness, defamation, insulting behaviour and arbitrary conduct concerning a child are offences against the person to which the investigating authorities can take conviction decisions only if prosecution is called for in the public interest. The limitation, which in some cases is applicable only if the plaintiff has reported an offence for prosecution, means that the authorities cannot handle all the cases even if there is cause to believe that an offence is committed. There are no corresponding limitations among other offences against the person in the Swedish Penal Code. The aim of this thesis is to investigative how these rules for trial of prosecution affect the plaintiff’s access to redress. This... (More)
The offences causing bodily injury or illness, defamation, insulting behaviour and arbitrary conduct concerning a child are offences against the person to which the investigating authorities can take conviction decisions only if prosecution is called for in the public interest. The limitation, which in some cases is applicable only if the plaintiff has reported an offence for prosecution, means that the authorities cannot handle all the cases even if there is cause to believe that an offence is committed. There are no corresponding limitations among other offences against the person in the Swedish Penal Code. The aim of this thesis is to investigative how these rules for trial of prosecution affect the plaintiff’s access to redress. This thesis takes it outset in the principle of predictability.

The thesis states that the phrasing, called for in the public interest, is interpreted very narrowly by the investigating authorities and that very few cases result in conviction decisions. Of interest in the context is therefore that the power is shifted from the legislator to the Swedish Prosecuting Authority. In the thesis arguments are presented which claims that this shift of power is troublesome for many reasons and that both how the law is formulated and how the Swedish Prosecuting Authority interprets it presents difficulties for the plaintiff from a predictability perspective.

If the investigating authorities, after the trial of prosecution, have concluded that the offence is not theirs to handle the plaintiff is left to seek redress on its own. The thesis states that although these possibilities exist, the legislator has combined them with high demands and expectations of the plaintiff’s knowledgeable and financial ability. Since the average citizen in most cases lack the ability to fulfil these requirements it can be argued that the plaintiff’s real access to redress is decided already by the Swedish Prosecuting Authority’s decision. Because of this it can be argued that the legislator has given the Swedish Prosecuting Authority both the legislating power and the power to sentence. In the thesis arguments are presented which claims that the access to redress has developed into a class question.

In reference to both that the plaintiff’s real access to redress cannot be viewed as predictable and the many shortcomings that the legal system presents, the author proposes that the system should be reformed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Eliasson, Nils LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Justice – a lottery with high stakes? - About the importance of a prosecutor’s trial of prosecution for the plaintiff’s access to redress
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, criminal law, processrätt, criminal procedure law, upprättelse, redress, förutsebarhet, predictability
language
Swedish
id
8908632
date added to LUP
2017-06-10 13:31:11
date last changed
2017-06-10 13:31:11
@misc{8908632,
  abstract     = {The offences causing bodily injury or illness, defamation, insulting behaviour and arbitrary conduct concerning a child are offences against the person to which the investigating authorities can take conviction decisions only if prosecution is called for in the public interest. The limitation, which in some cases is applicable only if the plaintiff has reported an offence for prosecution, means that the authorities cannot handle all the cases even if there is cause to believe that an offence is committed. There are no corresponding limitations among other offences against the person in the Swedish Penal Code. The aim of this thesis is to investigative how these rules for trial of prosecution affect the plaintiff’s access to redress. This thesis takes it outset in the principle of predictability.

The thesis states that the phrasing, called for in the public interest, is interpreted very narrowly by the investigating authorities and that very few cases result in conviction decisions. Of interest in the context is therefore that the power is shifted from the legislator to the Swedish Prosecuting Authority. In the thesis arguments are presented which claims that this shift of power is troublesome for many reasons and that both how the law is formulated and how the Swedish Prosecuting Authority interprets it presents difficulties for the plaintiff from a predictability perspective.

If the investigating authorities, after the trial of prosecution, have concluded that the offence is not theirs to handle the plaintiff is left to seek redress on its own. The thesis states that although these possibilities exist, the legislator has combined them with high demands and expectations of the plaintiff’s knowledgeable and financial ability. Since the average citizen in most cases lack the ability to fulfil these requirements it can be argued that the plaintiff’s real access to redress is decided already by the Swedish Prosecuting Authority’s decision. Because of this it can be argued that the legislator has given the Swedish Prosecuting Authority both the legislating power and the power to sentence. In the thesis arguments are presented which claims that the access to redress has developed into a class question.

In reference to both that the plaintiff’s real access to redress cannot be viewed as predictable and the many shortcomings that the legal system presents, the author proposes that the system should be reformed.},
  author       = {Eliasson, Nils},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,criminal law,processrätt,criminal procedure law,upprättelse,redress,förutsebarhet,predictability},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rättvisa – ett lotteri med höga insatser? - Om betydelsen av åklagares åtalsprövning för målsägandens förutsebara tillgång till upprättelse},
  year         = {2017},
}