Advanced

Häktning och restriktioner i Norden – en komparativ studie av häktningsreglerna i Sverige, Danmark och Norge

Sundin, Oskar LU (2017) JURM02 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I denna uppsats jämförs de svenska häktnings- och restriktionsreglerna med motsvarande norska och danska regler. Uppsatsens syfte är att, utifrån skillnader mellan regelverken, undersöka vilka rättspolitiska argument som kan göras gällande för att de svenska häktnings- och restriktionsreglerna borde ändras. I uppsatsen används två metoder, komparativ metod och rättsanalytisk metod. Den komparativa metoden är själva jämförelsen mellan det svenska häktningsinstitutet och det danska samt norska häktningsinstitutet. Den rättsanalytiska metoden innefattar ett kartläggande av gällande rätt i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. Till skillnad från en rättsdogmatisk metod, öppnar den rättsanalytiska metoden upp för att låta värderingar ingå i analysen,... (More)
I denna uppsats jämförs de svenska häktnings- och restriktionsreglerna med motsvarande norska och danska regler. Uppsatsens syfte är att, utifrån skillnader mellan regelverken, undersöka vilka rättspolitiska argument som kan göras gällande för att de svenska häktnings- och restriktionsreglerna borde ändras. I uppsatsen används två metoder, komparativ metod och rättsanalytisk metod. Den komparativa metoden är själva jämförelsen mellan det svenska häktningsinstitutet och det danska samt norska häktningsinstitutet. Den rättsanalytiska metoden innefattar ett kartläggande av gällande rätt i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. Till skillnad från en rättsdogmatisk metod, öppnar den rättsanalytiska metoden upp för att låta värderingar ingå i analysen, exempelvis intresset av en effektiv brottsbekämpning och rättssäkerhet. Tillsammans används dessa metoder för att göra en analys de lege ferenda av de svenska häktnings- och restriktionsreglerna.

Undersökningen är uppdelad i två huvudavsnitt och analysen presenteras löpande. I det första huvudavsnittet undersöks och jämförs häktningsreglerna i Sverige med motsvarande danska och norska regler. Skillnader som visas i denna del är hur ett häktningsbeslut ska motiveras enligt svensk rätt jämfört med dansk och norsk rätt; den rättsliga lösningen för häktning vid allvarlig brottslighet; avsaknaden av tidsgränser för häktningar i svensk rätt jämfört med dansk rätt; skillnader i tidsfristerna för häktningar; skillnader i möjligheterna att begränsa kollusionsrisker genom att säkra muntlig bevisning före huvudförhandlingen. I analysen lyfts bland annat fram att förändringar bör göras av de svenska reglerna för motivering av häktningsbeslut, den särskilda regleringen av häktning vid allvarlig brottslighet och att tidsgränser för häktningar bör införas i svensk rätt.

I undersökningens andra del undersöks restriktionsreglerna. Skillnader som lyfts fram i detta avsnitt är att det i Danmark och i Norge är rätten som beslutar om restriktioner som kan innebära att den häktade isoleras, medan en domstol i Sverige ger åklagaren ett generellt tillstånd att meddela restriktioner mot den häktade. I både Danmark och Norge finns tidsgränser för hur länge en häktad får isoleras, medan det i Sverige helt saknas sådana tidsgränser. Vidare finns det skillnader i utformandet av de materiella förutsättningarna för restriktioner som innebär isolering, i svensk rätt jämförd med dansk och norsk rätt. Rättens motivering av beslut om restriktioner skiljer sig också åt i Sverige jämfört med Danmark och Norge. I analysen lyfts det bland annat fram att det tycks finnas skillnader i synen på proportionalitet vid restriktionsanvändningen i Sverige jämfört med Norge och Danmark. Denna syn bör ändras genom att det i lag förtydligas när restriktioner som innebär isolering får meddelas och hur länge dessa restriktioner får meddelas.

I uppsatsens avslutande analys presenteras vilka utgångspunkter som bör vara styrande för riskbedömningen vid kollusionsfara för att säkra en rättstillämpning som innebär att häktning och restriktioner inte används i fler fall än nödvändigt. Den föreslagna riskbedömningen kan göras utan att ändringar görs i den materiella rätten, genom att det ställs krav på motiveringen av både häktnings- och restriktionsbeslut. Vidare lyfts det fram att möjligheterna till att säkra muntlig bevisning tidigare i brottmålsprocessen bör utökas, för att begränsa kollusionsrisker och därmed behovet av häktning och restriktioner. (Less)
Abstract
In this paper, the Swedish law regarding pre-trial detention and restrictions against detained persons are compared with equivalent Norwegian and Danish laws. On the basis of differences between Swedish law compared with Danish and Norwegian law, the survey’s purpose is to study which justice political argument that can be made for a change of the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons. The survey uses two methods, comparative method and law analytic method. The comparative method is used for the comparison between the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions, and the Danish and Norwegian law regarding detention and restrictions. The law analytic method includes examining the established law in... (More)
In this paper, the Swedish law regarding pre-trial detention and restrictions against detained persons are compared with equivalent Norwegian and Danish laws. On the basis of differences between Swedish law compared with Danish and Norwegian law, the survey’s purpose is to study which justice political argument that can be made for a change of the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons. The survey uses two methods, comparative method and law analytic method. The comparative method is used for the comparison between the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions, and the Danish and Norwegian law regarding detention and restrictions. The law analytic method includes examining the established law in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. In contrast to the law dogmatic method, the law analytic method opens up for values to be a part of the analysis, for example the interest of effective law enforcement and the interest of rule of law. Together these two methods are used for an analysis de lege ferenda of the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons.

The survey is divided into two main sections. In the first section, the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons, are examined and compared with equivalent Danish and Norwegian law. Shown differences include the rules regarding what the court’s motivation of a detention order must include; the legal solution for detention in cases of serious criminal offences; the absence of time limits in Swedish law compared with Danish law, regarding the total time of detention; differences regarding the period of time the court can order a detention before a new detention order must be made or the detained person released; differences regarding the possibilities to limit the risk of a suspect tampering with evidence, by securing oral evidence without a main hearing. In the analysis its argued that the Swedish law should be changed in regard of the court’s motivation of its detention order, the law regarding detention in cases of serious criminal offences and that time limits should be implemented in Swedish law, limiting the total period of detention.

In the second section of the survey, the law regarding restrictions against detained persons are examined. Shown differences include that in Denmark and Norway, it’s the court that orders restrictions that leads to isolation of the detained. In Sweden, the court gives the prosecutor permission to order restrictions against the detained. Further more, there are time limits in Danish and Norwegian law regarding the total time a detained person may be isolated, while there are no such time limits in Swedish law. There are also differences in the material prerequisites for deciding on restrictions that lead to an isolation of the detained. The Swedish law regarding the court’s motivation of a restriction order also differ compared to the Norwegian and Danish law. In the analysis it’s argued that it appears to be differences in the view of proportionality regarding the use of restrictions, in Sweden compared to Norway and Denmark. This view needs to be changed in Sweden, by passing laws that clarifies when restrictions that leads to isolation may be used, and for how long those restrictions may be used.

In the concluding analysis, a few main points are presented, that should be decisive in the risk assessment that the court must do when it examines a risk of tampering with evidence, in order to secure that detentions and restrictions are not used in more cases than necessary. This risk assessment could be implemented without a change of the material law, but by demanding that the court must motivate a detention order and a restriction order. Further more, it’s argued that the possibilities to secure oral evidence earlier in the criminal trial procedure should be extended. This should be done in order to limit the risk of a suspect tampering with evidence, and therefore the need of detention and restrictions. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sundin, Oskar LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Detention and restrictions in the Nordic countries – a comparative study of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian laws regarding pre-trial detention
course
JURM02 20172
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Komparativ rätt, comparative law, straffrätt, criminal law, Straffprocessrätt, criminal procedure law, häktning, detention, restriktioner
language
Swedish
id
8930237
date added to LUP
2018-02-01 13:57:00
date last changed
2018-02-01 13:57:00
@misc{8930237,
  abstract     = {In this paper, the Swedish law regarding pre-trial detention and restrictions against detained persons are compared with equivalent Norwegian and Danish laws. On the basis of differences between Swedish law compared with Danish and Norwegian law, the survey’s purpose is to study which justice political argument that can be made for a change of the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons. The survey uses two methods, comparative method and law analytic method. The comparative method is used for the comparison between the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions, and the Danish and Norwegian law regarding detention and restrictions. The law analytic method includes examining the established law in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. In contrast to the law dogmatic method, the law analytic method opens up for values to be a part of the analysis, for example the interest of effective law enforcement and the interest of rule of law. Together these two methods are used for an analysis de lege ferenda of the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons.

The survey is divided into two main sections. In the first section, the Swedish law regarding detention and restrictions against detained persons, are examined and compared with equivalent Danish and Norwegian law. Shown differences include the rules regarding what the court’s motivation of a detention order must include; the legal solution for detention in cases of serious criminal offences; the absence of time limits in Swedish law compared with Danish law, regarding the total time of detention; differences regarding the period of time the court can order a detention before a new detention order must be made or the detained person released; differences regarding the possibilities to limit the risk of a suspect tampering with evidence, by securing oral evidence without a main hearing. In the analysis its argued that the Swedish law should be changed in regard of the court’s motivation of its detention order, the law regarding detention in cases of serious criminal offences and that time limits should be implemented in Swedish law, limiting the total period of detention.

In the second section of the survey, the law regarding restrictions against detained persons are examined. Shown differences include that in Denmark and Norway, it’s the court that orders restrictions that leads to isolation of the detained. In Sweden, the court gives the prosecutor permission to order restrictions against the detained. Further more, there are time limits in Danish and Norwegian law regarding the total time a detained person may be isolated, while there are no such time limits in Swedish law. There are also differences in the material prerequisites for deciding on restrictions that lead to an isolation of the detained. The Swedish law regarding the court’s motivation of a restriction order also differ compared to the Norwegian and Danish law. In the analysis it’s argued that it appears to be differences in the view of proportionality regarding the use of restrictions, in Sweden compared to Norway and Denmark. This view needs to be changed in Sweden, by passing laws that clarifies when restrictions that leads to isolation may be used, and for how long those restrictions may be used.

In the concluding analysis, a few main points are presented, that should be decisive in the risk assessment that the court must do when it examines a risk of tampering with evidence, in order to secure that detentions and restrictions are not used in more cases than necessary. This risk assessment could be implemented without a change of the material law, but by demanding that the court must motivate a detention order and a restriction order. Further more, it’s argued that the possibilities to secure oral evidence earlier in the criminal trial procedure should be extended. This should be done in order to limit the risk of a suspect tampering with evidence, and therefore the need of detention and restrictions.},
  author       = {Sundin, Oskar},
  keyword      = {Komparativ rätt,comparative law,straffrätt,criminal law,Straffprocessrätt,criminal procedure law,häktning,detention,restriktioner},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Häktning och restriktioner i Norden – en komparativ studie av häktningsreglerna i Sverige, Danmark och Norge},
  year         = {2017},
}