Advanced

Ensam mot massmedia – en studie av brottsoffers möjlighet till upprättelse vid förtal i grundlagsskyddade medier

Persson, Henrik LU (2017) JURM02 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Under de senaste åren har kritik riktats mot att brottsoffer inte ges tillräcklig möjlighet till upprättelse vid förtal i medier som omfattas av tryckfrihetsförordningen eller yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen. Syftet med den här uppsatsen är därför att utreda om lagstiftningsåtgärder bör vidtas för att brottsoffer i större utsträckning ska ges möjlighet till upprättelse – i form av en fällande dom mot gärningspersonen – vid förtal i grundlagsskyddade medier.

En fällande dom kan endast uppnås om åtal väcks. Justitiekanslern är ensam åklagare vid brott i grundlagsskyddade medier, men det är ytterst sällan som Justitiekanslern väcker åtal för förtal. Detta sammanhänger med att förtal som huvudregel inte hör under allmänt åtal. I de allra flesta... (More)
Under de senaste åren har kritik riktats mot att brottsoffer inte ges tillräcklig möjlighet till upprättelse vid förtal i medier som omfattas av tryckfrihetsförordningen eller yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen. Syftet med den här uppsatsen är därför att utreda om lagstiftningsåtgärder bör vidtas för att brottsoffer i större utsträckning ska ges möjlighet till upprättelse – i form av en fällande dom mot gärningspersonen – vid förtal i grundlagsskyddade medier.

En fällande dom kan endast uppnås om åtal väcks. Justitiekanslern är ensam åklagare vid brott i grundlagsskyddade medier, men det är ytterst sällan som Justitiekanslern väcker åtal för förtal. Detta sammanhänger med att förtal som huvudregel inte hör under allmänt åtal. I de allra flesta fallen är det upp till brottsoffret själv att väcka åtal för förtal, men på grund av de stora ekonomiska riskerna med enskilt åtal är det dock sällan som sådant åtal väcks. Detta innebär att många brottsoffer går miste om upprättelse.

I de få fall då åtal väcks för förtal i ett grundlagsskyddat medium – antingen av Justitiekanslern eller av brottsoffret – ska frågan om brott föreligger prövas av en jury. Juryn lämnar ingen motivering till sitt utslag och rätten är bunden av juryns utslag om juryn friar den tilltalade. Denna särskilda processordning påverkar på olika sätt brottsoffers möjlighet till upprättelse. Det föreligger exempelvis en risk för att juryn felaktigt frikänner den tilltalade, och då är det problematiskt att rätten inte kan rätta till juryutslaget.

Efter att ha vägt problemen med åtals- och processregleringen mot skälen bakom regleringen, har jag kommit fram till att vissa lagstiftningsåtgärder bör vidtas. Enligt min mening bör det genomföras en utvidgning av möjligheten till allmänt åtal för förtal. Därtill bör det vidtas åtgärder för att minska de ekonomiska riskerna med enskilt åtal. När det gäller processregleringen är min åsikt att jurysystemet bör avskaffas och att mål om förtal i grundlagsskyddade medier i princip bör hanteras som vilka andra brottmål som helst. Samtliga av dessa lagstiftningsåtgärder skulle, enligt min bedömning, utgöra en förstärkning av brottsoffers möjlighet till upprättelse. (Less)
Abstract
In recent years, criticisms have been directed at the inadequate possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction from the criminal justice system when defamation occurs in a medium protected by the Freedom of the Press Act or the Freedom of Expression Act. The purpose of this essay is therefore to investigate whether legislative measures should be taken to strengthen the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction from the criminal justice system – in the form of convictions against the perpetrators – when defamation occurs in constitutionally protected media.

A conviction can only be obtained if prosecution is brought. The Chancellor of Justice is the sole prosecutor for crimes that occur in constitutionally... (More)
In recent years, criticisms have been directed at the inadequate possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction from the criminal justice system when defamation occurs in a medium protected by the Freedom of the Press Act or the Freedom of Expression Act. The purpose of this essay is therefore to investigate whether legislative measures should be taken to strengthen the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction from the criminal justice system – in the form of convictions against the perpetrators – when defamation occurs in constitutionally protected media.

A conviction can only be obtained if prosecution is brought. The Chancellor of Justice is the sole prosecutor for crimes that occur in constitutionally protected media, but it is extremely rare that the Chancellor brings prosecution for defamation. This is because defamation, as a main rule, does not fall under public prosecution. In the vast majority of cases it is up to the victim itself to bring prosecution for defamation, but due to the great financial risks of private prosecution it is rare that such prosecution is brought. Consequently, a lot of defamation victims are missing out on satisfaction.

In the few cases where public or private prosecution is brought for defamation in a constitutionally protected medium, a jury is responsible for trying the case. The jury gives no grounds for its verdict and the court is bound by the jury's verdict if the jury acquits the accused. This special procedural system affects, in different ways, the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction. There is, for example, a risk that the jury incorrectly acquits the accused. It is therefore problematic that the court cannot correct the jury’s verdict.

After having examined the problems with the prosecutorial and procedural regulations, as well as the reasons behind the regulations, I have concluded that certain legislative measures should be taken. In my view, the possibility of public prosecution for defamation should be extended. In addition, measures should be taken to reduce the financial risks of private prosecution. Regarding the procedural regulation, it is my opinion that the jury system should be abolished and that cases of defamation in constitutionally protected media in principle should be treated as any other criminal cases. All of these legislative measures would, in my view, constitute an enhancement of the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Persson, Henrik LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Alone against mass media – a study of the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction when defamation occurs in constitutionally protected media
course
JURM02 20172
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
processrätt, straffprocessrätt, straffrätt, förtal, tryckfrihetsprocessen, jury, allmänt åtal
language
Swedish
id
8929704
date added to LUP
2018-02-01 13:57:25
date last changed
2018-02-01 13:57:25
@misc{8929704,
  abstract     = {In recent years, criticisms have been directed at the inadequate possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction from the criminal justice system when defamation occurs in a medium protected by the Freedom of the Press Act or the Freedom of Expression Act. The purpose of this essay is therefore to investigate whether legislative measures should be taken to strengthen the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction from the criminal justice system – in the form of convictions against the perpetrators – when defamation occurs in constitutionally protected media.

A conviction can only be obtained if prosecution is brought. The Chancellor of Justice is the sole prosecutor for crimes that occur in constitutionally protected media, but it is extremely rare that the Chancellor brings prosecution for defamation. This is because defamation, as a main rule, does not fall under public prosecution. In the vast majority of cases it is up to the victim itself to bring prosecution for defamation, but due to the great financial risks of private prosecution it is rare that such prosecution is brought. Consequently, a lot of defamation victims are missing out on satisfaction.

In the few cases where public or private prosecution is brought for defamation in a constitutionally protected medium, a jury is responsible for trying the case. The jury gives no grounds for its verdict and the court is bound by the jury's verdict if the jury acquits the accused. This special procedural system affects, in different ways, the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction. There is, for example, a risk that the jury incorrectly acquits the accused. It is therefore problematic that the court cannot correct the jury’s verdict. 

After having examined the problems with the prosecutorial and procedural regulations, as well as the reasons behind the regulations, I have concluded that certain legislative measures should be taken. In my view, the possibility of public prosecution for defamation should be extended. In addition, measures should be taken to reduce the financial risks of private prosecution. Regarding the procedural regulation, it is my opinion that the jury system should be abolished and that cases of defamation in constitutionally protected media in principle should be treated as any other criminal cases. All of these legislative measures would, in my view, constitute an enhancement of the possibility for defamation victims to receive satisfaction.},
  author       = {Persson, Henrik},
  keyword      = {processrätt,straffprocessrätt,straffrätt,förtal,tryckfrihetsprocessen,jury,allmänt åtal},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ensam mot massmedia – en studie av brottsoffers möjlighet till upprättelse vid förtal i grundlagsskyddade medier},
  year         = {2017},
}