Passar ett kronvittnessystem i svensk rättsordning? - En kritisk diskussion kring kronvittnen i svensk rätt
(2019) LAGF03 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Ska kronvittnen införas i svensk lagstiftning? Frågan har vidrörts ett flertal gånger i den politiska debatten och är idag ett oerhört aktuellt ämne. Sveriges statsminister meddelade i januari 2019 att ännu en utredning om kronvittnen ska tillsättas.
Ett kronvittne är en tilltalad som erhåller strafflindring på grund av att hen medverkat eller assisterat i utredningen av annans brottslighet. Strafflindring för kronvittnen finns i dagsläget inte med i Sveriges billighetsskäl.
Uppsatsens huvudsakliga frågeställning går ut på att utreda huruvida ett kronvittnessystem skulle strida mot Sveriges grundläggande straffrättsliga principer. Rättssäkerhet, proportionalitet, maximen Ex turpi causa non oritur actio med mera behandlas. Vidare går... (More) - Ska kronvittnen införas i svensk lagstiftning? Frågan har vidrörts ett flertal gånger i den politiska debatten och är idag ett oerhört aktuellt ämne. Sveriges statsminister meddelade i januari 2019 att ännu en utredning om kronvittnen ska tillsättas.
Ett kronvittne är en tilltalad som erhåller strafflindring på grund av att hen medverkat eller assisterat i utredningen av annans brottslighet. Strafflindring för kronvittnen finns i dagsläget inte med i Sveriges billighetsskäl.
Uppsatsens huvudsakliga frågeställning går ut på att utreda huruvida ett kronvittnessystem skulle strida mot Sveriges grundläggande straffrättsliga principer. Rättssäkerhet, proportionalitet, maximen Ex turpi causa non oritur actio med mera behandlas. Vidare går uppsatsen igenom instanser då kronvittnen berörts i svensk rätt. Utredningar som belyser fördelar och nackdelar med ett svenskt kronvittnessystem redogörs för, där inställningen till kronvittnen övervägande har varit negativ. Förarbeten till 29:5 BrB diskuteras för att belysa att lagstiftaren ansett att kronvittnen enbart undantagsvis ska få möjlighet till strafflindring.
I ett uppmärksammat fall från Högsta Domstolen och ett annat från Hovrätten medgav domstolen strafflindring för personer som på grund av att de angett medbrottslingar skulle få leva sina liv med en allvarlig hotbild. Domstolen öppnar indirekt genom avgörandena upp för kronvittnen i svensk rätt.
De grundläggande straffrättsliga principerna jämförs avslutningsvis med hur ett kronvittnessystem tillämpas. Även om ett kronvittnessystem skulle passa in i svensk rättsordning på vissa sätt stöter det sig med svensk rättstradition för kraftigt överlag för att kunna anses vara kompatibelt. Slutsatsen som dras av analysen är att ett kronvittnessystem, om än eventuellt processekonomiskt effektivt, inte har någon plats i det svenska rättssystemet. Detta särskilt eftersom ett kronvittnessystem inte har någon vetenskapligt bevisad effektivitetsökning i den brottsutredande verksamheten. (Less) - Abstract
- Should crown witnesses be introduced into Swedish legislation? The question has arisen several times in the Swedish political debate and is today an exceedingly contemporary topic. In January 2019, the Prime Minister of Sweden announced that another inquiry regarding crown witnesses should be made.
A crown witness is a defendant whom receives mitigation of his or her sentence because they have participated or assisted in the investigation of someone else´s crime. Mitigation is currently not included in the Swedish equitable grounds.
The essay's main question is to investigate whether a crown witness system would interfere with Swedish fundamental criminal law principles. The principles of legal security, proportionality, the maxim Ex... (More) - Should crown witnesses be introduced into Swedish legislation? The question has arisen several times in the Swedish political debate and is today an exceedingly contemporary topic. In January 2019, the Prime Minister of Sweden announced that another inquiry regarding crown witnesses should be made.
A crown witness is a defendant whom receives mitigation of his or her sentence because they have participated or assisted in the investigation of someone else´s crime. Mitigation is currently not included in the Swedish equitable grounds.
The essay's main question is to investigate whether a crown witness system would interfere with Swedish fundamental criminal law principles. The principles of legal security, proportionality, the maxim Ex turpi causa non oritur actio et cetera is addressed. Furthermore, the paper observes occurrences where crown witnesses are referred to in Swedish law. Inquires which illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of a legal system containing crown witness are described, where the attitude to crown witnesses has been predominantly negative. Legislative history related to 29:5 BrB is discussed in order to illustrate that the legislature opinion concerning crown witnesses. According to the legislature crown witness should only be granted mitigation in exceptional cases.
In a noteworthy case from the Supreme Court and another from the second highest general court, the court admitted mitigation for persons who, as a consequence of the fact that they named accomplices, would have to live their lives under serious threat. The court indirectly opens up to the possibility of applying the system of crown witnesses in Swedish law through the decisions. Doctrine related to crown witnesses in general and as a response to the case in the Supreme Court is presented.
Lastly the basic principles of criminal law mentioned are compared to the core of the crown witness system. Although crown witnesses would fit in with the Swedish legal system in some ways, it interferes with the Swedish legal tradition to such an extent that it can`t be compatible. The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that a crown witness system, although possibly economically efficient, has no place in the Swedish legal system. Also, the system of crown witnesses is not suitable, since there is no scientifically proven rise in efficiency due to such a system. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8977403
- author
- Bentelius, Hugo LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, Rättsvetenskap, Kronvittnen, NJA 2009 s.599
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8977403
- date added to LUP
- 2019-09-16 14:30:18
- date last changed
- 2019-09-16 14:30:18
@misc{8977403,
abstract = {{Should crown witnesses be introduced into Swedish legislation? The question has arisen several times in the Swedish political debate and is today an exceedingly contemporary topic. In January 2019, the Prime Minister of Sweden announced that another inquiry regarding crown witnesses should be made.
A crown witness is a defendant whom receives mitigation of his or her sentence because they have participated or assisted in the investigation of someone else´s crime. Mitigation is currently not included in the Swedish equitable grounds.
The essay's main question is to investigate whether a crown witness system would interfere with Swedish fundamental criminal law principles. The principles of legal security, proportionality, the maxim Ex turpi causa non oritur actio et cetera is addressed. Furthermore, the paper observes occurrences where crown witnesses are referred to in Swedish law. Inquires which illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of a legal system containing crown witness are described, where the attitude to crown witnesses has been predominantly negative. Legislative history related to 29:5 BrB is discussed in order to illustrate that the legislature opinion concerning crown witnesses. According to the legislature crown witness should only be granted mitigation in exceptional cases.
In a noteworthy case from the Supreme Court and another from the second highest general court, the court admitted mitigation for persons who, as a consequence of the fact that they named accomplices, would have to live their lives under serious threat. The court indirectly opens up to the possibility of applying the system of crown witnesses in Swedish law through the decisions. Doctrine related to crown witnesses in general and as a response to the case in the Supreme Court is presented.
Lastly the basic principles of criminal law mentioned are compared to the core of the crown witness system. Although crown witnesses would fit in with the Swedish legal system in some ways, it interferes with the Swedish legal tradition to such an extent that it can`t be compatible. The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that a crown witness system, although possibly economically efficient, has no place in the Swedish legal system. Also, the system of crown witnesses is not suitable, since there is no scientifically proven rise in efficiency due to such a system.}},
author = {{Bentelius, Hugo}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Passar ett kronvittnessystem i svensk rättsordning? - En kritisk diskussion kring kronvittnen i svensk rätt}},
year = {{2019}},
}