Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Kan en missuppfattning fria från ansvar? - En granskning av rättssäkerheten vid domstolens bedömning av putativsituationer

Persson, Lina LU (2018) LAGF03 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
This paper is, using a legal dogmatic method, analysing the Court’s assessment of putative self-defence. The key question is whether the legal certainty can be regarded as fulfilled in such an assessment.

An unauthorized act that is perpetrated with intent shall, as a rule, cause criminal liability, but there are exceptions to all rules. A person who perceives a different view of reality than the objectively prevailing is in a putative situation. An unauthorized act committed during a putative state can be justified in exceptional cases. The reason is that the right of self-defence also includes putative self-defence, which is a justifying circumstance who can prevail freedom of responsibility. To be free of responsibility, the person... (More)
This paper is, using a legal dogmatic method, analysing the Court’s assessment of putative self-defence. The key question is whether the legal certainty can be regarded as fulfilled in such an assessment.

An unauthorized act that is perpetrated with intent shall, as a rule, cause criminal liability, but there are exceptions to all rules. A person who perceives a different view of reality than the objectively prevailing is in a putative situation. An unauthorized act committed during a putative state can be justified in exceptional cases. The reason is that the right of self-defence also includes putative self-defence, which is a justifying circumstance who can prevail freedom of responsibility. To be free of responsibility, the person in question must be in aberrancy regarding the perception of reality. Furthermore, it is required that the act would have been lawful under the right of self-defence, under Swedish law, if the putative perception was to be true.

Main focus of this essay is the legal certainty of the Court’s assessment concerning putative situations. Legal certainty is studied on the basis of whether the predictability is maintained in the Court’s assessment. Discussion is if the principle of conformity, a principle of legal certainty, is applicable and compatible with the application of law. The meaning of the principle is that punishment may only affect the person who has been able to comply with the law. Consequently, the question arises as to how a person should be able to comply with the law when he misunderstands the prevailing situation.

Conflicts of interest arise where the interests of all parties cannot be met. Analysing the various interests, it can be concluded that the arguments are based on a desire for predictability in the Court’s assessment. The Court maintains legal certainty to some extent. This is made by using the perpetrator’s perceived reality as the basis for the assessment. However, whether the Court fulfils legal certainty or not can be discussed. The analysis concludes that there is a legal uncertainty. The main reason is lack of external evidence and guidelines to be used by the Court in cases regarding putative situations. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen har genom en rättsdogmatisk metod undersökt domstolens bedömning av putativt nödvärn. Centrala kärnan i utredningen är om rättssäkerheten kan anses vara uppfylld vid en sådan bedömning.

En otillåten handling som förövas med uppsåt ska i regel föranleda straffansvar, däremot föreligger inga regler utan undantag. En person som upplever en annan verklighetsuppfattning än den objektivt rådande befinner sig i en putativsituation. En otillåten gärning begången under ett putativt tillstånd kan i undantagsfall vara rättfärdigad. Anledningen är att nödvärnsrätten omfattar även putativt nödvärn, vilket är en rättfärdigande omständighet som kan föranleda ansvarsfrihet. För ansvarsfrihet krävs att personen i fråga är i villfarelse... (More)
Uppsatsen har genom en rättsdogmatisk metod undersökt domstolens bedömning av putativt nödvärn. Centrala kärnan i utredningen är om rättssäkerheten kan anses vara uppfylld vid en sådan bedömning.

En otillåten handling som förövas med uppsåt ska i regel föranleda straffansvar, däremot föreligger inga regler utan undantag. En person som upplever en annan verklighetsuppfattning än den objektivt rådande befinner sig i en putativsituation. En otillåten gärning begången under ett putativt tillstånd kan i undantagsfall vara rättfärdigad. Anledningen är att nödvärnsrätten omfattar även putativt nödvärn, vilket är en rättfärdigande omständighet som kan föranleda ansvarsfrihet. För ansvarsfrihet krävs att personen i fråga är i villfarelse gällande verklighetsuppfattningen. Vidare krävs det att gärningen skulle ha varit berättigad enligt nödvärnsrätten i 24 kap. 1 § brottsbalken om den felaktiga uppfattningen varit sann.

Rättssäkerheten vid domstolens bedömning av putativsituationer är således av central betydelse för denna uppsats. Rättssäkerheten studeras utifrån om förutsebarheten upprätthålls vid domstolens bedömning. Diskussion förs kring om konformitetsprincipen, en rättssäkerhetsfrämjande princip, är tillämplig och förenlig med rättstillämpningen. Principen ger nämligen uttryck för att straff endast får drabba den som kunnat rätta sig efter lagen. Följaktligen uppstår frågan hur en person ska kunna rätta sig efter lagen när denne missuppfattar den rådande situationen.

Intressekonflikter uppstår där alla omöjligen kan tillgodoses. Vid en analys av de olika intressena kan det konstateras att argumenten bottnar i en önskan om förutsebarhet i domstolens bedömning. Domstolen upprätthåller rättssäkerheten till viss del. Det sker främst genom att gärningspersonens bild av verkligheten läggs till grund för bedömningen. Däremot om rättssäkerheten efterlevs fullt ut kan diskuteras. I analysen konstateras att det uppstår en rättsosäkerhet. Det främsta skälet är brist på yttre bevisning och en avsaknad av konkreta riktlinjer för domstolen att tillgå i mål som rör putativsituationer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Persson, Lina LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20182
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt
language
Swedish
id
8965603
date added to LUP
2019-03-13 12:14:11
date last changed
2019-03-13 12:14:11
@misc{8965603,
  abstract     = {{This paper is, using a legal dogmatic method, analysing the Court’s assessment of putative self-defence. The key question is whether the legal certainty can be regarded as fulfilled in such an assessment. 

An unauthorized act that is perpetrated with intent shall, as a rule, cause criminal liability, but there are exceptions to all rules. A person who perceives a different view of reality than the objectively prevailing is in a putative situation. An unauthorized act committed during a putative state can be justified in exceptional cases. The reason is that the right of self-defence also includes putative self-defence, which is a justifying circumstance who can prevail freedom of responsibility. To be free of responsibility, the person in question must be in aberrancy regarding the perception of reality. Furthermore, it is required that the act would have been lawful under the right of self-defence, under Swedish law, if the putative perception was to be true. 

Main focus of this essay is the legal certainty of the Court’s assessment concerning putative situations. Legal certainty is studied on the basis of whether the predictability is maintained in the Court’s assessment. Discussion is if the principle of conformity, a principle of legal certainty, is applicable and compatible with the application of law. The meaning of the principle is that punishment may only affect the person who has been able to comply with the law. Consequently, the question arises as to how a person should be able to comply with the law when he misunderstands the prevailing situation.

Conflicts of interest arise where the interests of all parties cannot be met. Analysing the various interests, it can be concluded that the arguments are based on a desire for predictability in the Court’s assessment. The Court maintains legal certainty to some extent. This is made by using the perpetrator’s perceived reality as the basis for the assessment. However, whether the Court fulfils legal certainty or not can be discussed. The analysis concludes that there is a legal uncertainty. The main reason is lack of external evidence and guidelines to be used by the Court in cases regarding putative situations.}},
  author       = {{Persson, Lina}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Kan en missuppfattning fria från ansvar? - En granskning av rättssäkerheten vid domstolens bedömning av putativsituationer}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}