Styrkan av ett rättsintyg: En granskning av rättsintygsreformens innebörd för rättsintygens bevisstyrka
(2018) JURM02 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigutlåtanden såsom rättsintyg har
tidigare uppmärksammats för att vara otillräcklig och generös. Samtidigt har rättsintygens kvalitet fått mycket kritik. År 2006 skedde dock den så kallade rättsintygsreformen och denna uppsats utreder vad reformen har inneburit för rättsintygens bevisstyrka. Syftet är att belysa de nuvarande förhållanden som råder vid rättsintygens utfärdande och vid domstolens bevisvärdering av rättsintyg. Uppsatsen fokuserar på rättsintygens bevisstyrka oberoende annan bevisning och det påstående som rättsintygen åberopas för att styrka.
År 2018 publicerade Statskontoret en utvärderingsrapport om lagstiftningen kring rättsintyg. Genom att studera resultaten i rapporten tillsammans... (More) - Domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigutlåtanden såsom rättsintyg har
tidigare uppmärksammats för att vara otillräcklig och generös. Samtidigt har rättsintygens kvalitet fått mycket kritik. År 2006 skedde dock den så kallade rättsintygsreformen och denna uppsats utreder vad reformen har inneburit för rättsintygens bevisstyrka. Syftet är att belysa de nuvarande förhållanden som råder vid rättsintygens utfärdande och vid domstolens bevisvärdering av rättsintyg. Uppsatsen fokuserar på rättsintygens bevisstyrka oberoende annan bevisning och det påstående som rättsintygen åberopas för att styrka.
År 2018 publicerade Statskontoret en utvärderingsrapport om lagstiftningen kring rättsintyg. Genom att studera resultaten i rapporten tillsammans med utdrag från debatten kring rättsintygens kvalitet konstaterar jag att rättsintygens bevisstyrka har ökat, då en betydligt större andel rättsläkare numera utfärdar rättsintygen. Samtidigt är möjligheterna att få den tilltalades version prövad under det rättsmedicinska förfarandet begränsade och det finns också en påtaglig risk att underlaget som rättsläkare baserar sina rättsintyg på är bristande. Detta talar mot att den generella bevisstyrkan har
ökat.
I uppsatsen presenterar jag och diskuterar runt resultaten från min granskning av 130 tingsrättsdomar. Resultaten visar att tingsrätten i de allra flesta mål värderar rättsintygen positivt men endast motiverar bevisvärderingen när rättsintyget bedöms vara bristfälligt. Tingsrätten värderar generellt rättsintygen högre än utsagor från vittnen, tilltalade och målsägande, och för mer resonemang kring deras utsagor i domskälen.
I uppsatsens avslutande kapitel jämförs bevisstyrkan som rättsintygen ges av tingsrätten med rättsintygens faktiska bevisstyrka. Jämförelsen visar att rättsintygen generellt värderas högre än den bevisstyrka jag anser att rättsintyg generellt har. Jag jämför även rättsintygens faktiska bevisstyrka med de tendenser jag identifierar i tingsrättens bevisvärdering. Jämförelsen visar att tingsrätten sannolikt har en tendens att inte tillräckligt ifrågasätta rättsintygens bevisstyrka. (Less) - Abstract
- Legal science has earlier observed that the court’s assessment of expert
evidence such as forensic reports can be inadequate and generous. At the same time the quality of forensic reports has been criticised. However, in 2006 a new law and regulation that regulates forensic reports came into force, and the so-called “forensic report reform” was implemented. This essay examines the meaning of the reform for forensic reports. The purpose is to bring attention to the current conditions that exist when forensic reports are issued and when courts evaluate forensic reports. The essay focuses on what value forensic reports has as evidence and does not consider what forensic reports are meant to prove or their value together with other evidence.
... (More) - Legal science has earlier observed that the court’s assessment of expert
evidence such as forensic reports can be inadequate and generous. At the same time the quality of forensic reports has been criticised. However, in 2006 a new law and regulation that regulates forensic reports came into force, and the so-called “forensic report reform” was implemented. This essay examines the meaning of the reform for forensic reports. The purpose is to bring attention to the current conditions that exist when forensic reports are issued and when courts evaluate forensic reports. The essay focuses on what value forensic reports has as evidence and does not consider what forensic reports are meant to prove or their value together with other evidence.
In 2018 Statskontoret, the Swedish Agency for Public Management, issued a
report that examines the consequences of the reform. I study the results
presented in the report together with different opinions regarding the quality of forensic reports. My conclusion is that the value of forensic reports as evidence has increased, since a significant higher proportion of all forensic reports now are issued by forensic doctors. Yet the possibilities for the suspect to be a part of the forensic procedure are limited and there is a significant risk that the material that forensic doctors base their forensic reports on is lacking. This indicates that the value of forensic reports as evidence has not increased.
In this essay I also present and discuss the results from my study on 130
judgements from Swedish district courts. The results show that the district courts in most cases evaluate the forensic reports positively but only explain the assessment when the forensic reports are found inadequate. Overall, the district courts evaluate forensic reports more positive than interrogations with suspects, injured parts and witnesses. The district courts also discuss these interrogations more often than the forensic reports in the judgement.
In the conclusion I compare the district courts’ assessment of forensic reports with my own view on forensic reports. I find that forensic reports in general are evaluated more generously than they should be, considering their actual quality. The actual quality is also compared with the district courts’ tendencies in their assessment of evidence. My conclusion is that the district courts tend to not question forensic reports enough. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965101
- author
- Norén, Agnes LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The value of a forensic report: A study of what the forensic report reform has meant for the value of forensic reports
- course
- JURM02 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, processrätt, straffprocessrätt, rättsintyg
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965101
- date added to LUP
- 2019-01-30 17:07:45
- date last changed
- 2019-01-30 17:07:45
@misc{8965101,
abstract = {{Legal science has earlier observed that the court’s assessment of expert
evidence such as forensic reports can be inadequate and generous. At the same time the quality of forensic reports has been criticised. However, in 2006 a new law and regulation that regulates forensic reports came into force, and the so-called “forensic report reform” was implemented. This essay examines the meaning of the reform for forensic reports. The purpose is to bring attention to the current conditions that exist when forensic reports are issued and when courts evaluate forensic reports. The essay focuses on what value forensic reports has as evidence and does not consider what forensic reports are meant to prove or their value together with other evidence.
In 2018 Statskontoret, the Swedish Agency for Public Management, issued a
report that examines the consequences of the reform. I study the results
presented in the report together with different opinions regarding the quality of forensic reports. My conclusion is that the value of forensic reports as evidence has increased, since a significant higher proportion of all forensic reports now are issued by forensic doctors. Yet the possibilities for the suspect to be a part of the forensic procedure are limited and there is a significant risk that the material that forensic doctors base their forensic reports on is lacking. This indicates that the value of forensic reports as evidence has not increased.
In this essay I also present and discuss the results from my study on 130
judgements from Swedish district courts. The results show that the district courts in most cases evaluate the forensic reports positively but only explain the assessment when the forensic reports are found inadequate. Overall, the district courts evaluate forensic reports more positive than interrogations with suspects, injured parts and witnesses. The district courts also discuss these interrogations more often than the forensic reports in the judgement.
In the conclusion I compare the district courts’ assessment of forensic reports with my own view on forensic reports. I find that forensic reports in general are evaluated more generously than they should be, considering their actual quality. The actual quality is also compared with the district courts’ tendencies in their assessment of evidence. My conclusion is that the district courts tend to not question forensic reports enough.}},
author = {{Norén, Agnes}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Styrkan av ett rättsintyg: En granskning av rättsintygsreformens innebörd för rättsintygens bevisstyrka}},
year = {{2018}},
}