Advanced

Att svara som gärningsman eller som medverkande

Billing, Martin LU (2017) JURM02 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En viktig utgångspunkt i straffrätten är det individuella ansvaret. Människor begår däremot ofta brott tillsammans. Denna uppsats handlar hur det straffrättsligt bör hanteras när flera personer begår brott gemensamt.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att behandla den rubriceringsproblematik som kan uppstå när en tilltalad står åtalad för ett brott som är begånget i gemenskap. Begreppslig klarhet är genomgående ledord i avhandlingen. Av särskilt intresse är gärningsmannabegreppet och kontaktytan mellan ansvar som gärningsman i förhållande till ansvar som anstiftare eller medhjälpare.

Genom rättsdogmatisk metod behandlas materialet, som huvudsakligen består av svensk juridisk doktrin och rättspraxis, med avsikt att redogöra för hur gällande... (More)
En viktig utgångspunkt i straffrätten är det individuella ansvaret. Människor begår däremot ofta brott tillsammans. Denna uppsats handlar hur det straffrättsligt bör hanteras när flera personer begår brott gemensamt.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att behandla den rubriceringsproblematik som kan uppstå när en tilltalad står åtalad för ett brott som är begånget i gemenskap. Begreppslig klarhet är genomgående ledord i avhandlingen. Av särskilt intresse är gärningsmannabegreppet och kontaktytan mellan ansvar som gärningsman i förhållande till ansvar som anstiftare eller medhjälpare.

Genom rättsdogmatisk metod behandlas materialet, som huvudsakligen består av svensk juridisk doktrin och rättspraxis, med avsikt att redogöra för hur gällande rätt bör förstås och hur den har utvecklats. Genomgående i avhandlingen och särskilt i uppsatsens avslutande del diskuteras materialet utifrån den intresseavvägning som präglar straffrätten. Där den enskildes rättsskydd i förhållande till de allmänna måste tillgodoses samtidigt som straffrättens förverkligandeintressen, att kunna lagföra och bestraffa brottslingar, också tillgodoses.

Uppsatsen inleds med en redogörelse för allmänna rättsprinciper och de processuella regler i rättegångsbalken såväl som Europakonventionen som säkerställer rätten till en rättvis rättegång. Sedan följer en generell redogörelse av medverkansläran och de olika former av ansvar som kan aktualiseras då brott begås av flera personer. Särskilt utrymme viks åt olika former av ansvar i gärningsmannaskap och då särskilt genom tillämpning av 23 kap. 4 § st. 2 BrB, vilken har tolkas på så vis att även den som inte i strikt mening är gärningsman ändå i vissa fall kan anses vara det. Sedan följer en redogörelse över rättspraxis i syfte att presentera hur gränsdragningen mellan ansvar som gärningsman eller ansvar som i övrigt medverkande utvecklats över tid och hur rättsläget bör förstås i nuläget.

Studiens resultat visar att kontaktytan mellan ansvar som gärningsman och ansvar så som i övrigt medverkande primärt gör sig gällande vid tillämpning av det utvidgade gärningsmannaskapet. Ansvarsformen aktualiseras i de fall en tilltalad, som i strikt mening är anstiftare eller medhjälpare, bör anses vara gärningsman eftersom det mot bakgrund av situationen i fråga anses vara naturligt. Avgörande för bedömningen har varit huruvida personen ifråga kan beskrivas ha agerat i samråd eller inte med andra och även huruvida dennes främjandegärning varit av sådan kvalitet att den motiverar ansvar som gärningsman. Studien visar att det i rättspraxis har funnits en växelverkan mellan hur domstolarna behandlat dessa begrepp och över tid har rättssäkerhetsintressen tillåtits att spela en större roll med konsekvensen att det vad avser rubriceringsfrågan blivit svårare att döma någon i utvidgat gärningsmannaskap. Studien visar även att de processuella regler som ligger till grund för en rättvis prövning i RB och EKMR inte är samstämmiga. (Less)
Abstract
The foundation of Criminal liability is the condition that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and those actions alone. People however, often commit crime together. This thesis deals with criminal liability when people commit crime as a collective.

With the aim of conceptual clarity, the purpose of this essay is to process the classification problem that may arise when a defendant is indicted for a crime that was committed together with others. Special interest is put to the question when a defendant should be tried for his or her actions as an actor, rather than for his or her instigation or abatement.

With legal dogmatic methodology the material, mainly consisting of Swedish legal doctrine and case law, is processed... (More)
The foundation of Criminal liability is the condition that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and those actions alone. People however, often commit crime together. This thesis deals with criminal liability when people commit crime as a collective.

With the aim of conceptual clarity, the purpose of this essay is to process the classification problem that may arise when a defendant is indicted for a crime that was committed together with others. Special interest is put to the question when a defendant should be tried for his or her actions as an actor, rather than for his or her instigation or abatement.

With legal dogmatic methodology the material, mainly consisting of Swedish legal doctrine and case law, is processed with the intent to clarify how the law has evolved and how it should be interpreted. Throughout the thesis and especially with regard to its final chapter the material is discussed from the point of view that criminal law is constantly characterized by a conflict of interest. The conflict consists on the one hand of the need for an unhibited right to a fair process for any individual tried for a crime, and on the other hand the need for any criminal legal system to be effective with regard to its intention, to punish those who commit crime.

The thesis starts with a description of legal principles of foundational importance and rules of due process within the Swedish legal system, as well as those contained in European Convention, after which a general description of the rules concerning parties to a crime in Swedish law follows. Special attention is put to the question what differentiates the actor from the instigator or the accessory. Primary focus is put on one provision in the Swedish penal code, which stipulates that despite a defendant not being an actor in the concrete sense, but rather an accomplice, he or she may be deemed to be an actor, should this follow naturally from the circumstances in question. After this the thesis assesses relevant case law with the purpose of depicting how the criminal liability, as it regards parties to a crime, has evolved over time.

The result of the thesis shows that the criminal responsibility as an actor, rather than that of the accomplice, primarily is conditioned on the applicability of the notion of “extended responsibility”. The term can be applied in instances when the situation at hand makes for the conclusion that the person in question have been of to much importance for the completion of a crime, that he or she merely is to be regarded as an accomplice. Decisive in this assessment has been whether or not the person has acted in concert with others, and whether or not this persons action of accessory can be deemed to be of great importance with respect to the crime at hand. The study shows that the assessment of the one criteria influences the assessment of the other criteria and vice versa. Over time, the legal precedent has somewhat shifted towards the direction of due process. The consequence being that is has become more difficult to apply the notion of “extended responsibility”. The study also shows that there is a distinction between the the rules in the Swedish procedural law and the European convention with regard to what due process should be. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Billing, Martin LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
To answer for a crime as the actor or as an accomplice
course
JURM02 20172
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Criminal law, gärningsmannabegrepp, utvidgat gärningsmannaskap
language
Swedish
id
8930773
date added to LUP
2018-02-01 14:00:09
date last changed
2018-02-01 14:00:09
@misc{8930773,
  abstract     = {The foundation of Criminal liability is the condition that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and those actions alone. People however, often commit crime together. This thesis deals with criminal liability when people commit crime as a collective. 

With the aim of conceptual clarity, the purpose of this essay is to process the classification problem that may arise when a defendant is indicted for a crime that was committed together with others. Special interest is put to the question when a defendant should be tried for his or her actions as an actor, rather than for his or her instigation or abatement. 

With legal dogmatic methodology the material, mainly consisting of Swedish legal doctrine and case law, is processed with the intent to clarify how the law has evolved and how it should be interpreted. Throughout the thesis and especially with regard to its final chapter the material is discussed from the point of view that criminal law is constantly characterized by a conflict of interest. The conflict consists on the one hand of the need for an unhibited right to a fair process for any individual tried for a crime, and on the other hand the need for any criminal legal system to be effective with regard to its intention, to punish those who commit crime. 

The thesis starts with a description of legal principles of foundational importance and rules of due process within the Swedish legal system, as well as those contained in European Convention, after which a general description of the rules concerning parties to a crime in Swedish law follows. Special attention is put to the question what differentiates the actor from the instigator or the accessory. Primary focus is put on one provision in the Swedish penal code, which stipulates that despite a defendant not being an actor in the concrete sense, but rather an accomplice, he or she may be deemed to be an actor, should this follow naturally from the circumstances in question. After this the thesis assesses relevant case law with the purpose of depicting how the criminal liability, as it regards parties to a crime, has evolved over time. 

The result of the thesis shows that the criminal responsibility as an actor, rather than that of the accomplice, primarily is conditioned on the applicability of the notion of “extended responsibility”. The term can be applied in instances when the situation at hand makes for the conclusion that the person in question have been of to much importance for the completion of a crime, that he or she merely is to be regarded as an accomplice. Decisive in this assessment has been whether or not the person has acted in concert with others, and whether or not this persons action of accessory can be deemed to be of great importance with respect to the crime at hand. The study shows that the assessment of the one criteria influences the assessment of the other criteria and vice versa. Over time, the legal precedent has somewhat shifted towards the direction of due process. The consequence being that is has become more difficult to apply the notion of “extended responsibility”. The study also shows that there is a distinction between the the rules in the Swedish procedural law and the European convention with regard to what due process should be.},
  author       = {Billing, Martin},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,Criminal law,gärningsmannabegrepp,utvidgat gärningsmannaskap},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Att svara som gärningsman eller som medverkande},
  year         = {2017},
}