Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Envarsgripande - Under vilka förutsättningar kan en person rättsenligt gripa en annan?

Jönsson, Sara LU (2019) LAGF03 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka hur svensk rätt reglerar envarsgripande. Envarsgripande innebär, enkelt uttryckt, rätten för varje individ att, under vissa förutsättningar, gripa en annan person.

Detta är något som samhället, enligt den svenska lagstiftaren, principiellt sett bör uppmuntra. Samtidigt bör kommas ihåg att brottsbekämpning främst är statens uppgift och straffprocessuella tvångsmedel åtföljs av krav på bland annat proportionalitet. Det vore problematiskt att ställa dessa krav på enskilda, varför det är av yttersta vikt att privatpersoners befogenhet på området har tydliga rättsliga gränser.

Min analys visar att vissa av rekvisiten för envarsgripande är något oklara.
Det finns begränsat med praxis på området... (More)
Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka hur svensk rätt reglerar envarsgripande. Envarsgripande innebär, enkelt uttryckt, rätten för varje individ att, under vissa förutsättningar, gripa en annan person.

Detta är något som samhället, enligt den svenska lagstiftaren, principiellt sett bör uppmuntra. Samtidigt bör kommas ihåg att brottsbekämpning främst är statens uppgift och straffprocessuella tvångsmedel åtföljs av krav på bland annat proportionalitet. Det vore problematiskt att ställa dessa krav på enskilda, varför det är av yttersta vikt att privatpersoners befogenhet på området har tydliga rättsliga gränser.

Min analys visar att vissa av rekvisiten för envarsgripande är något oklara.
Det finns begränsat med praxis på området och mycket lite forskning har gjorts på ämnet.

En person som företar ett rättsstridigt envarsgripande riskerar att själv begå brott, huvudsakligen ofredande eller olaga frihetsberövande. Förarbeten tillsammans med prejudikat visar dock att ett speciellt krav vad det gäller uppsåt, främst vid olaga frihetsberövande, ofta fungerar som ett skyddsnät för den gripande individen. Detta beror på att uppsåtet måste täcka det faktum att frihetsberövandet är olaga.

Följaktligen finns det inte någon klar gränsdragning för när ett envarsgripande övergår i ett brottsligt handlande, i synnerhet vad gäller olaga frihetsberövande. Det rör sig snarare om två gränser. Den första när den som gripit rent objektivt förfarit rättsstridigt men inte varit medveten om detta. Då kan denne inte dömas till ansvar. Därefter finns den andra gränsen, när den som griper kan tillförskrivas uppsåt till att agerandet varit rättsstridigt. Där emellan föreligger någon slags rättslig limbo där handlandet inte ses som rättsenligt, men inte heller som brottsligt. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine how Swedish law regulates citizen’s arrest. Put simply, Citizen’s arrest means the right for every individual to, under certain conditions, apprehend another person.

According to the Swedish legislator this is something that society in principle should encourage. However, one should keep in mind that law enforcement is primarily a task for the state. Furthermore, coercive measures are generally accompanied by demands of, inter alia, proportionality. Imposing these demands on individuals would be problematic. Therefore, it is of great importance that the right of individuals to apprehend other people has clear legal boundaries.

My analysis shows that some of the prerequisites of a legal... (More)
The purpose of this paper is to examine how Swedish law regulates citizen’s arrest. Put simply, Citizen’s arrest means the right for every individual to, under certain conditions, apprehend another person.

According to the Swedish legislator this is something that society in principle should encourage. However, one should keep in mind that law enforcement is primarily a task for the state. Furthermore, coercive measures are generally accompanied by demands of, inter alia, proportionality. Imposing these demands on individuals would be problematic. Therefore, it is of great importance that the right of individuals to apprehend other people has clear legal boundaries.

My analysis shows that some of the prerequisites of a legal citizen’s arrest are somewhat unclear. There is a limited amount of precedents and very little research has been done on the subject. A person making an unlawful citizen´s arrest runs the risk of committing a crime himself, primarily harassment or illegal restraint. However, preparatory work together with precedents show that a special requirement regarding intent, in case of illegal restraint, often works as a safety net for the individual apprehending. This is due to the intent having to cover the fact that the restraint is illegal.

Therefore, there is no clear-cut demarcation between a lawful citizen´s arrest and a criminal act, particularly in case of illegal restraint. It is rather a question of two borderlines. The first one being when the person performing the apprehension has been, objectively, unlawful in doing so but without insight in the unlawfulness. In this situation the person cannot be held responsible. Crossing the second borderline means that the apprehending individual can be held accountable due to the intent covering also the unlawfulness of the act. In between these two borders there exists a sort of legal limbo where the actions are neither seen as lawful, nor criminal. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jönsson, Sara LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20191
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Envarsgripande
language
Swedish
id
8976985
date added to LUP
2019-09-16 10:35:54
date last changed
2019-09-16 10:35:54
@misc{8976985,
  abstract     = {{The purpose of this paper is to examine how Swedish law regulates citizen’s arrest. Put simply, Citizen’s arrest means the right for every individual to, under certain conditions, apprehend another person.

According to the Swedish legislator this is something that society in principle should encourage. However, one should keep in mind that law enforcement is primarily a task for the state. Furthermore, coercive measures are generally accompanied by demands of, inter alia, proportionality. Imposing these demands on individuals would be problematic. Therefore, it is of great importance that the right of individuals to apprehend other people has clear legal boundaries. 

My analysis shows that some of the prerequisites of a legal citizen’s arrest are somewhat unclear. There is a limited amount of precedents and very little research has been done on the subject. A person making an unlawful citizen´s arrest runs the risk of committing a crime himself, primarily harassment or illegal restraint. However, preparatory work together with precedents show that a special requirement regarding intent, in case of illegal restraint, often works as a safety net for the individual apprehending. This is due to the intent having to cover the fact that the restraint is illegal. 

Therefore, there is no clear-cut demarcation between a lawful citizen´s arrest and a criminal act, particularly in case of illegal restraint. It is rather a question of two borderlines. The first one being when the person performing the apprehension has been, objectively, unlawful in doing so but without insight in the unlawfulness. In this situation the person cannot be held responsible. Crossing the second borderline means that the apprehending individual can be held accountable due to the intent covering also the unlawfulness of the act. In between these two borders there exists a sort of legal limbo where the actions are neither seen as lawful, nor criminal.}},
  author       = {{Jönsson, Sara}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Envarsgripande - Under vilka förutsättningar kan en person rättsenligt gripa en annan?}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}