Advanced

Medverkansansvarets utvecklingstendenser – om utvidgat gärningsmannaskap och gränsdragningen mellan (med)gärningsmannaskap och medhjälp i svensk rätt

Af Klercker, Max LU (2019) JURM02 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Medverkansansvar inträder när flera personer tillsammans utför otillåtna gärningar. Rättsläget är i stora delar oreglerat, men hänförs till 23 kap. 4 § Brottsbalken (BrB). Om alla personer agerar tillsammans och i samförstånd och utför lika stora delar av gärningen döms de alla som medgärningsmän. Den som inte är gärningsman, men ändå främjat brottet, bedöms som anstiftare eller medhjälpare. Genom en juridisk konstruktion kallad utvidgat gärningsmannaskap kan dock en person som endast främjat ett brott anses vara gärningsman där det ter sig naturligt. Konstruktionen tolkas ur bestämmelsens förarbeten från 1940-talet och har vidareutvecklats av Högsta domstolen (och delvis hovrätterna) och har vidare analyserats i doktrin.

Professorn... (More)
Medverkansansvar inträder när flera personer tillsammans utför otillåtna gärningar. Rättsläget är i stora delar oreglerat, men hänförs till 23 kap. 4 § Brottsbalken (BrB). Om alla personer agerar tillsammans och i samförstånd och utför lika stora delar av gärningen döms de alla som medgärningsmän. Den som inte är gärningsman, men ändå främjat brottet, bedöms som anstiftare eller medhjälpare. Genom en juridisk konstruktion kallad utvidgat gärningsmannaskap kan dock en person som endast främjat ett brott anses vara gärningsman där det ter sig naturligt. Konstruktionen tolkas ur bestämmelsens förarbeten från 1940-talet och har vidareutvecklats av Högsta domstolen (och delvis hovrätterna) och har vidare analyserats i doktrin.

Professorn Claes Lernestedt har (i en text publicerad år 2009) kritiserat det utvidgade gärningsmannaskapet och den praxisutveckling som utvidgade medverkansläran mellan 1992 och 2002 och varnar däri för en situation där alla tilltalade ansvarar för allt agerande som gruppen begått. På så sätt skulle en mer kollektivistisk bedömning leda till ett utarmande av det i straffrätten så viktiga individuella straffansvaret. Denna tes är central för uppsatsen då utredningen av begreppet utvidgat gärningsmannaskap och gränsdragningen mellan gärningsmannaskap och medhjälp görs. Utredningen av medverkanslärans utveckling görs dels genom en rättshistorisk genomgång men också genom en rättsfallsanalys bestående av 30 hovrättsfall från de senaste två åren. Den centrala frågan är således om Lernestedts farhågor besannats genom de senaste årens utveckling i praxis från HD och hovrätterna. Slutsatserna av uppsatsen är dels att den praxis från HD som följt efter Lernestedts tes givit tydligare och stramare riktlinjer för hur området ska bedömas och således stramat åt utvidgningen. Vidare kan som resultat av rättsfallsgenomgången ses resultat som både pekar i utvidgande och åtstramande riktning, men överlag nås slutsatsen att lite talar för att en sådan oroväckande utvidgning varken skett eller kommer att ske. (Less)
Abstract
The legal structure of Swedish criminal law when a group of people commits unlawful acts (responsibility for complicity) is largely unregulated but is based in section 4, chapter 24 of the Swedish Penal Code. If these persons perform equal actions in the act and act together and in consensus, they are all liable as co-perpetrators. A person who is less involved, but who has promoted the act, can be deemed as abetter or aider. In some cases, someone who has merely promoted an act can be reclassified as perpetrator (through the construction of extended responsibility), when such reclassification is regarded just. The legal basis for such construction is the preparatory work of the Penal Code and the judgements of the Supreme Court of Sweden.... (More)
The legal structure of Swedish criminal law when a group of people commits unlawful acts (responsibility for complicity) is largely unregulated but is based in section 4, chapter 24 of the Swedish Penal Code. If these persons perform equal actions in the act and act together and in consensus, they are all liable as co-perpetrators. A person who is less involved, but who has promoted the act, can be deemed as abetter or aider. In some cases, someone who has merely promoted an act can be reclassified as perpetrator (through the construction of extended responsibility), when such reclassification is regarded just. The legal basis for such construction is the preparatory work of the Penal Code and the judgements of the Supreme Court of Sweden. This legal structure has been debated amongst criminal law scholars.

Swedish legal scholar Claes Lernestedt has criticised the development of the structure in case law between 1992 and 2002. Lernestedt envisioned (in 2009) a future situation where all who contributed to a crime were responsible for all actions committed by the group as perpetrators. This would lead to a more collectivistic acclamation of responsibility and in the end strike a threat to principle of individual criminal liability. This premise is central for this thesis and as a basis for the description of the relevant legal structures. The development of the area is analysed through both a legal historical review but also through a quantitative case study of 30 cases from the last two years. The central question for the thesis is naturally if the premise presented by Lernestedt in 2009 has come true in the latest years of case law. The conclusions of the thesis are partly that the case law from the Supreme Court has provided a more clear and distinct way of assessing the responsibility through such reclassification. Furthermore, the conclusions from the case study of lower court practice is that little evidence overall (although it can be noticed in some cases) can be noticed towards such alarming development where all promoters of crimes in a more collectivistic manner is regarded as perpetrators. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Af Klercker, Max LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The evolvement of the doctrine of participation in Swedish Criminal Law - regarding the construction of extended responsibility and the legal differentiation between perpetration and participation
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, rättsvetenskap, medverkansansvar, gärningsmannaskap, medverkan, medgärningsmannaskap, medhjälp, utvidgat gärningsmannaskap, 23 kap. 4 § BrB, rättsutveckling, rättsfallsstudie
language
Swedish
id
9000291
date added to LUP
2020-01-28 09:33:15
date last changed
2020-01-28 09:33:15
@misc{9000291,
  abstract     = {The legal structure of Swedish criminal law when a group of people commits unlawful acts (responsibility for complicity) is largely unregulated but is based in section 4, chapter 24 of the Swedish Penal Code. If these persons perform equal actions in the act and act together and in consensus, they are all liable as co-perpetrators. A person who is less involved, but who has promoted the act, can be deemed as abetter or aider. In some cases, someone who has merely promoted an act can be reclassified as perpetrator (through the construction of extended responsibility), when such reclassification is regarded just. The legal basis for such construction is the preparatory work of the Penal Code and the judgements of the Supreme Court of Sweden. This legal structure has been debated amongst criminal law scholars.

Swedish legal scholar Claes Lernestedt has criticised the development of the structure in case law between 1992 and 2002. Lernestedt envisioned (in 2009) a future situation where all who contributed to a crime were responsible for all actions committed by the group as perpetrators. This would lead to a more collectivistic acclamation of responsibility and in the end strike a threat to principle of individual criminal liability. This premise is central for this thesis and as a basis for the description of the relevant legal structures. The development of the area is analysed through both a legal historical review but also through a quantitative case study of 30 cases from the last two years. The central question for the thesis is naturally if the premise presented by Lernestedt in 2009 has come true in the latest years of case law. The conclusions of the thesis are partly that the case law from the Supreme Court has provided a more clear and distinct way of assessing the responsibility through such reclassification. Furthermore, the conclusions from the case study of lower court practice is that little evidence overall (although it can be noticed in some cases) can be noticed towards such alarming development where all promoters of crimes in a more collectivistic manner is regarded as perpetrators.},
  author       = {Af Klercker, Max},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,rättsvetenskap,medverkansansvar,gärningsmannaskap,medverkan,medgärningsmannaskap,medhjälp,utvidgat gärningsmannaskap,23 kap. 4 § BrB,rättsutveckling,rättsfallsstudie},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Medverkansansvarets utvecklingstendenser – om utvidgat gärningsmannaskap och gränsdragningen mellan (med)gärningsmannaskap och medhjälp i svensk rätt},
  year         = {2019},
}