Olagligt åtkommen bevisning i svensk, amerikansk och kanadensisk rätt
(2019) JURM02 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In Sweden, the ruling principle on evidence is that it is allowed to admit almost any type of evidence before a court in a criminal case. There is a few exceptions and general exclusion rule in 35:7 rättegångsbalken, which is used mostly when evidence is clearly not needed in the trial. It is considered possible to admit and use evidence that was gathered through a breach of a constitutional right.
In the U.S. and in Canada there is a completely different view on the principles of evidence. These two countries both have rules about improperly obtained evidence and a rich case law about when evidence is allowed and when it is to be excluded. In the U.S. the exclusionary rule says that evidence shall be excluded if it is gathered in... (More) - In Sweden, the ruling principle on evidence is that it is allowed to admit almost any type of evidence before a court in a criminal case. There is a few exceptions and general exclusion rule in 35:7 rättegångsbalken, which is used mostly when evidence is clearly not needed in the trial. It is considered possible to admit and use evidence that was gathered through a breach of a constitutional right.
In the U.S. and in Canada there is a completely different view on the principles of evidence. These two countries both have rules about improperly obtained evidence and a rich case law about when evidence is allowed and when it is to be excluded. In the U.S. the exclusionary rule says that evidence shall be excluded if it is gathered in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, unless there is an exception to the rule that still maintains the preventive purpose of it. On the contrary, Canada's rule allows illegally obtained evidence as long as the admission of it doesn't bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In Sweden, two different types of situations dealing with illegally obtained evidence have been clarified. The first situation is that evidence gathered through a breach of Article 3 in the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against torture and other similar inhuman treatment, is forbidden to use. The other situation is when a defendant's right to a fair trial has been irremediably undermined, which also results in the prohibition of using that evidence.
Neither the U.S. nor Sweden has their rules about illegally obtained evidence written in the law, as opposed to Canada. To have the rule not written in the law, allows for a more flexible interpretation, but makes it less predictable, both on how to use the rule and how the legal situation works. It is possible that the legal situation would be clearer and more predictable if Sweden used the Canadian rule as a model and introduced a similar rule in regeringsformen, that would allow illegally obtained evidence to be used, to not contradict the ruling Swedish principle on evidence, if an admission of the evidence does not irremediably undermine the defendant's right to a fair trial. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I Sverige gäller principen om den fria bevisprövningen. Förutom ett fåtal undantag och en generell avvisningsregel i 35:7 rättegångsbalken finns det i princip inga begränsningar om vad som får åberopas som bevisning i en domstol i brottmål. Det har heller inte ansetts oförenligt med lag att ta upp och pröva bevisning som åtkommits på ett olagligt sätt.
I USA och Kanada förhåller det sig annorlunda. I båda dessa länder finns det regler kring olagligt åtkommen bevisning och en väl utvecklad praxis kring hur och när bevisning skall tillåtas och när den skall avvisas från att användas i brottmål. I USA gäller huvudregeln att bevisning skall uteslutas om den tillkommit genom en kränkning av en grundlagsskyddad rättighet, om situationen inte... (More) - I Sverige gäller principen om den fria bevisprövningen. Förutom ett fåtal undantag och en generell avvisningsregel i 35:7 rättegångsbalken finns det i princip inga begränsningar om vad som får åberopas som bevisning i en domstol i brottmål. Det har heller inte ansetts oförenligt med lag att ta upp och pröva bevisning som åtkommits på ett olagligt sätt.
I USA och Kanada förhåller det sig annorlunda. I båda dessa länder finns det regler kring olagligt åtkommen bevisning och en väl utvecklad praxis kring hur och när bevisning skall tillåtas och när den skall avvisas från att användas i brottmål. I USA gäller huvudregeln att bevisning skall uteslutas om den tillkommit genom en kränkning av en grundlagsskyddad rättighet, om situationen inte träffas av ett undantag som fortfarande upprätthåller det preventiva syftet med regeln. I Kanada gäller tvärtom att olagligt åtkommen bevisning skall tillåtas om ett tillåtande inte skulle skapa allvarlig misstro för rättsväsendet.
I Sverige har två situationer gällande olagligt åtkommen bevisning blivit klarlagda. Det första är ett förbud mot att använda bevisning som tillkommit genom ett brott mot Artikel 3 i Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och grundläggande friheterna, som stadgar skydd mot tortyr och liknande omänsklig behandling, och det andra är ett förbud mot att använda sig av bevisning som oåterkalleligen skulle undergräva den tilltalades rätt till en rättvis rättegång.
Varken USA eller Sverige har regeln kring olagligt åtkommen bevisning nedtecknad vilket Kanada har. Att inte ha regeln upptagen i lag tillåter en mer flexibel tolkning, men minskar förutsebarheten både i hur den skall användas och rättsläget i stort. Det är möjligt att rättsläget både skulle klarna och bli mer förutsebart om Sverige använde sig av den kanadensiska regeln som mall och införde en liknande regel i regeringsformen, där huvudregeln är att olagligt åtkommen bevisning skall tillåtas, för att inte strida mot principen om den fria bevisprövningen, så länge ett tillåtande av bevisningen inte oåterkalleligen undergräver den tilltalades rätt till en rättvis rättegång. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8977590
- author
- Hellberg, Albin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Illegally obtained evidence in Swedish, American and Canadian law.
- course
- JURM02 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8977590
- date added to LUP
- 2020-02-03 11:23:23
- date last changed
- 2020-02-03 11:23:23
@misc{8977590,
abstract = {{In Sweden, the ruling principle on evidence is that it is allowed to admit almost any type of evidence before a court in a criminal case. There is a few exceptions and general exclusion rule in 35:7 rättegångsbalken, which is used mostly when evidence is clearly not needed in the trial. It is considered possible to admit and use evidence that was gathered through a breach of a constitutional right.
In the U.S. and in Canada there is a completely different view on the principles of evidence. These two countries both have rules about improperly obtained evidence and a rich case law about when evidence is allowed and when it is to be excluded. In the U.S. the exclusionary rule says that evidence shall be excluded if it is gathered in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, unless there is an exception to the rule that still maintains the preventive purpose of it. On the contrary, Canada's rule allows illegally obtained evidence as long as the admission of it doesn't bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In Sweden, two different types of situations dealing with illegally obtained evidence have been clarified. The first situation is that evidence gathered through a breach of Article 3 in the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against torture and other similar inhuman treatment, is forbidden to use. The other situation is when a defendant's right to a fair trial has been irremediably undermined, which also results in the prohibition of using that evidence.
Neither the U.S. nor Sweden has their rules about illegally obtained evidence written in the law, as opposed to Canada. To have the rule not written in the law, allows for a more flexible interpretation, but makes it less predictable, both on how to use the rule and how the legal situation works. It is possible that the legal situation would be clearer and more predictable if Sweden used the Canadian rule as a model and introduced a similar rule in regeringsformen, that would allow illegally obtained evidence to be used, to not contradict the ruling Swedish principle on evidence, if an admission of the evidence does not irremediably undermine the defendant's right to a fair trial.}},
author = {{Hellberg, Albin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Olagligt åtkommen bevisning i svensk, amerikansk och kanadensisk rätt}},
year = {{2019}},
}