Nödvärn och nödvärnsexcess - Domstolens bedömning vid dödligt respektive livsfarligt nödvärnsvåld
(2017) LAGF03 20172Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Nödvärnsrätten stadgas i 24 kap. 1 § BrB. En handling som företagits i en nödvärnssituation är tillåten så länge den inte är uppenbart oförsvarlig. Om den angripne handlar uppenbart oförsvarligt, det vill säga nödvärnsexcess, går personen ändå fri från ansvar om denne svårligen kunde besinna sig. Detta fastställs i 24 kap. 6 § BrB.
I denna uppsats undersöks vilka principer som styr domstolens försvarlighet- respektive excessbedömning när den angripne brukar vapen eller andra tillhyggen. Domstolen gör sin försvarlighetsbedömning i två steg. Först bedöms hur nödvärnshandlingen förhåller sig till den skada som hotar genom angreppet. I nästa steg utreds om nödvärnshandlingen var behövlig för att avvärja angreppet. Det läggs stor vikt vid... (More) - Nödvärnsrätten stadgas i 24 kap. 1 § BrB. En handling som företagits i en nödvärnssituation är tillåten så länge den inte är uppenbart oförsvarlig. Om den angripne handlar uppenbart oförsvarligt, det vill säga nödvärnsexcess, går personen ändå fri från ansvar om denne svårligen kunde besinna sig. Detta fastställs i 24 kap. 6 § BrB.
I denna uppsats undersöks vilka principer som styr domstolens försvarlighet- respektive excessbedömning när den angripne brukar vapen eller andra tillhyggen. Domstolen gör sin försvarlighetsbedömning i två steg. Först bedöms hur nödvärnshandlingen förhåller sig till den skada som hotar genom angreppet. I nästa steg utreds om nödvärnshandlingen var behövlig för att avvärja angreppet. Det läggs stor vikt vid eventuella handlingsalternativ i rättspraxis. I sin excessbedömning ska domstolen beakta dels farans art och den tid som stått till förfogande samt dels den angripnes individuella egenskaper. Den angripnes tidsmässiga möjligheter att åstadkomma rätt motåtgärder tillmäts stor vikt.
Utöver principerna undersöks om skillnad föreligger i bedömningarna beroende på om nödvärnsvåldet är dödligt eller stannar vid att vara livsfarligt. I tre av de fem undersökta rättsfallen avlider angriparen. Utifrån fallen kan man se, i åtminstone försvarlighetsbedömningen, att domstolen gör en mer sträng bedömning när angriparen avlider. Detta kanske är en nödvändighet med hänsyn till att staten kan göra sig skyldig till brott mot artikel 2 EKMR vid en alltför omfattande nödvärnsrätt. (Less) - Abstract
- The right of self-defense is stated in Chapter 24 section 1 in BrB (the Swedish penal code). An action taken in self-defense is allowed as long as it is not obviously unjustifiable. If the act is obviously unjustifiable, i.e. excessive self-defense, the attacked person can still avoid responsibility if the circumstances were such that he could hardly control himself. This provision is stated in Chapter 24 section 6 BrB.
This essay examines which principles control the justifiable and excess assessment of the court when the attacked person use weapons. The court makes its justifiable assessment in two steps. First, it is judged how the self-defense action relates to the damage threatening through the attack. In the next step, it is... (More) - The right of self-defense is stated in Chapter 24 section 1 in BrB (the Swedish penal code). An action taken in self-defense is allowed as long as it is not obviously unjustifiable. If the act is obviously unjustifiable, i.e. excessive self-defense, the attacked person can still avoid responsibility if the circumstances were such that he could hardly control himself. This provision is stated in Chapter 24 section 6 BrB.
This essay examines which principles control the justifiable and excess assessment of the court when the attacked person use weapons. The court makes its justifiable assessment in two steps. First, it is judged how the self-defense action relates to the damage threatening through the attack. In the next step, it is investigated whether the self-defense was necessary to ward off the attack. Alternative ways of acting are attached great importance in case law. In the excess assessment, the court should consider the type of danger, available time and individual characteristics of the attacked person. The attacked person’s timely opportunities to achieve correct countermeasures are given great importance.
In addition to the principles, this essay examines if there is any difference in the assessments depending on whether the self-defense is fatal or just highly dangerous. In three of the five investigated cases, the attacker dies. Based on the cases, it can be seen at least in the justifiable assessment that the court makes a stricter assessment when the attacker dies. It may be a necessity when taking into consideration the fact that the state could breach Article 2 ECHR in case of a too excessive right of self-defense. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8930382
- author
- Falkenberg, Isabella LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20172
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, nödvärn, nödvärnsexcess
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8930382
- date added to LUP
- 2018-02-06 14:28:59
- date last changed
- 2018-02-06 14:28:59
@misc{8930382,
abstract = {{The right of self-defense is stated in Chapter 24 section 1 in BrB (the Swedish penal code). An action taken in self-defense is allowed as long as it is not obviously unjustifiable. If the act is obviously unjustifiable, i.e. excessive self-defense, the attacked person can still avoid responsibility if the circumstances were such that he could hardly control himself. This provision is stated in Chapter 24 section 6 BrB.
This essay examines which principles control the justifiable and excess assessment of the court when the attacked person use weapons. The court makes its justifiable assessment in two steps. First, it is judged how the self-defense action relates to the damage threatening through the attack. In the next step, it is investigated whether the self-defense was necessary to ward off the attack. Alternative ways of acting are attached great importance in case law. In the excess assessment, the court should consider the type of danger, available time and individual characteristics of the attacked person. The attacked person’s timely opportunities to achieve correct countermeasures are given great importance.
In addition to the principles, this essay examines if there is any difference in the assessments depending on whether the self-defense is fatal or just highly dangerous. In three of the five investigated cases, the attacker dies. Based on the cases, it can be seen at least in the justifiable assessment that the court makes a stricter assessment when the attacker dies. It may be a necessity when taking into consideration the fact that the state could breach Article 2 ECHR in case of a too excessive right of self-defense.}},
author = {{Falkenberg, Isabella}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Nödvärn och nödvärnsexcess - Domstolens bedömning vid dödligt respektive livsfarligt nödvärnsvåld}},
year = {{2017}},
}