Vanföreställning eller verklighet? - En granskning av domstolarnas bevisvärdering av rättspsykiatriska sakkunnigutlåtanden
(2019) JURM02 20192Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- A perpetrator who commits a crime affected of a severe mental disorder, and also by the time for the verdict is affected by such a disorder, shall primarily be sentenced to care instead of prison. If a severe mental disorder is suspected to be present, the perpetrator may undergo a forensic psychiatric examination. The examination results in a report of expertise, where the doctors and psychiatrists have reached a conclusion whether a severe mental disorder according to the law exists or not. Because of the courts lack of knowledge in this issue, they are substantially bound by the conclusion of the experts.
The courts are however not formally bound by the conclusion of the experts, but they shall evaluate all evidence received in the... (More) - A perpetrator who commits a crime affected of a severe mental disorder, and also by the time for the verdict is affected by such a disorder, shall primarily be sentenced to care instead of prison. If a severe mental disorder is suspected to be present, the perpetrator may undergo a forensic psychiatric examination. The examination results in a report of expertise, where the doctors and psychiatrists have reached a conclusion whether a severe mental disorder according to the law exists or not. Because of the courts lack of knowledge in this issue, they are substantially bound by the conclusion of the experts.
The courts are however not formally bound by the conclusion of the experts, but they shall evaluate all evidence received in the case to reach a conclusion. The objective of this thesis is to examine if an evaluation of the evidence is done, and how the evaluation in that case is done. Further on, the thesis aims to analyze how the evaluation of the evidence is done from a legal certainty perspective where the question of the requirement of predictability can be considered fulfilled is raised.
Both a qualitative and a quantitative investigation of legal cases have been made and flaws in the evaluations of the expert opinions can be detected. Verdicts according severe mental disorders were examined in the quantitative investigation, this was mainly verdicts from the district courts and in these there where rarely an evaluation presented. The court judged in these cases 99 times out of 100 according to the conclusion of the experts. The qualitative investigation instead focused on specifically selected verdicts where an evaluation of evidence was presented. This investigation showed both evaluations in accordance with guidelines from the supreme court, but also evaluations with flaws that could be called into question.
It is stated in the analysis that it is required that laws and precedents are applied in a predictable way if the formal rule of law shall be considered fulfilled. Although, several shortcomings are shown in the investigation which means that the formal legal certainty can not be considered to exist in full. It is mainly experts’ tendency to draw different conclusions based on the same material that is problematized, but also the fact that courts sometimes double count circumstances when evaluating the expert opinion.
Finally, proposals are made for how the procedures can be changed in order to increase legal certainty. First of all, it is stated that the courts should not add circumstances to the evaluation of the evidence as this increases the risk of double counting. Henceforth, the expert opinion should be supplemented if it is subject to some uncertainty, in trials with crimes that have a high penalty value, the statement should always be supplemented. Lastly, both the transparency and the predictability increases if the expert is heard in court, which increases the chance of materially correct judgments and also increases the prerequisite for a process characterized of legal certainty. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- En gärningsperson som begår ett brott under påverkan av en allvarlig psykisk störning och även vid domstillfället lider av en sådan störning, ska i första hand dömas till rättspsykiatrisk vård istället för fängelse. Vid misstanke om att en allvarlig psykisk störning föreligger får gärningspersonen genomgå en rättspsykiatrisk undersökning. Undersökningen resulterar i att de sakkunniga läkarna och psykologerna kan presentera ett utlåtande till domstolen där de dragit en slutsats kring om en allvarlig psykisk störning enligt lagens mening föreligger eller inte. På grund av domstolarnas okunskap i ämnet är de till stor del bundna av slutsatsen som de sakkunniga kommit fram till.
Domstolen är dock inte formellt bunden till... (More) - En gärningsperson som begår ett brott under påverkan av en allvarlig psykisk störning och även vid domstillfället lider av en sådan störning, ska i första hand dömas till rättspsykiatrisk vård istället för fängelse. Vid misstanke om att en allvarlig psykisk störning föreligger får gärningspersonen genomgå en rättspsykiatrisk undersökning. Undersökningen resulterar i att de sakkunniga läkarna och psykologerna kan presentera ett utlåtande till domstolen där de dragit en slutsats kring om en allvarlig psykisk störning enligt lagens mening föreligger eller inte. På grund av domstolarnas okunskap i ämnet är de till stor del bundna av slutsatsen som de sakkunniga kommit fram till.
Domstolen är dock inte formellt bunden till sakkunnigutlåtandet utan ska värdera all inkommen bevisning i målet för att sedan komma fram till en slutsats. Syftet med denna uppsats är därför att undersöka om en bevisvärdering av sakkunnigutlåtandena sker, och hur denna bevisvärdering i så fall går till. Fortsättningsvis ämnar uppsatsen att analysera tillvägagångssättet vid bevisvärderingen ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv där frågan om huruvida kravet på förutsägbarhet kan anses vara uppfyllt eller inte lyfts.
Både en kvantitativ och en kvalitativ granskning av rättsfall har gjorts och brister i hur bevisvärderingen av sakkunnigutlåtandena har gått till kan påvisas. I den kvantitativa granskningen undersöktes domar rörande allvarliga psykiska störningar mellan ett visst tidsspann, detta var främst tingsrättsdomar och i dessa redovisades sällan en bevisvärdering av utlåtandet. Domstolen dömde i dessa fall 99 gånger av 100 i enighet med den sakkunnigas utlåtande. Den kvalitativa granskningen fokuserade istället på specifikt utvalda domar där en bevisvärdering av sakkunnigutlåtandet redovisades. Denna undersökning visade såväl bevisvärderingar i enighet med riktlinjer från högsta domstolen som bevisvärderingar med vissa brister som på goda grunder kunde ifrågasättas.
Det konstateras i analysen att för att den formella rättssäkerheten ska anses vara uppfylld krävs det att lagar och prejudikat tillämpas på ett förutsägbart sätt. Flera brister påvisas dock i granskningen vilket gör att den formella rättssäkerheten inte kan anses föreligga fullt ut. Det är framförallt sakkunnigas benägenhet att dra olika slutsatser baserat på samma underlag som problematiseras, men även faktum som att domstolar ibland dubbelräknar omständigheter vid bevisvärderingen av sakkunnigutlåtandet.
Slutligen ges förslag till hur rutinerna kan ändras i syfte att öka rättssäkerheten. Först och främst konstateras att domstolarna inte bör lägga till omständigheter vid bevisvärderingen då detta ökar risken för dubbelräkning. Fortsättningsvis bör sakkunnigutlåtandet kompletteras om det är behäftat med viss osäkerhet, i rättegångar som avser brott med ett högt straffvärde bör alltid utlåtandet kompletteras. Slutligen ökar både transparensen och förutsägbarheten om den sakkunniga hörs i domstol, vilket ökar chansen för materiellt riktiga domar samt ger ökad förutsättning för en rättssäker process. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9000328
- author
- Jonson, Linn LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- An examination of the courts evaluation of expert testimonies regarding severe mental disorders
- course
- JURM02 20192
- year
- 2019
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Allmän rättslära, bevisvärdering, sakkunnigutlåtanden, rättspsykiatri
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9000328
- date added to LUP
- 2020-01-31 17:19:51
- date last changed
- 2020-01-31 17:19:51
@misc{9000328,
abstract = {{A perpetrator who commits a crime affected of a severe mental disorder, and also by the time for the verdict is affected by such a disorder, shall primarily be sentenced to care instead of prison. If a severe mental disorder is suspected to be present, the perpetrator may undergo a forensic psychiatric examination. The examination results in a report of expertise, where the doctors and psychiatrists have reached a conclusion whether a severe mental disorder according to the law exists or not. Because of the courts lack of knowledge in this issue, they are substantially bound by the conclusion of the experts.
The courts are however not formally bound by the conclusion of the experts, but they shall evaluate all evidence received in the case to reach a conclusion. The objective of this thesis is to examine if an evaluation of the evidence is done, and how the evaluation in that case is done. Further on, the thesis aims to analyze how the evaluation of the evidence is done from a legal certainty perspective where the question of the requirement of predictability can be considered fulfilled is raised.
Both a qualitative and a quantitative investigation of legal cases have been made and flaws in the evaluations of the expert opinions can be detected. Verdicts according severe mental disorders were examined in the quantitative investigation, this was mainly verdicts from the district courts and in these there where rarely an evaluation presented. The court judged in these cases 99 times out of 100 according to the conclusion of the experts. The qualitative investigation instead focused on specifically selected verdicts where an evaluation of evidence was presented. This investigation showed both evaluations in accordance with guidelines from the supreme court, but also evaluations with flaws that could be called into question.
It is stated in the analysis that it is required that laws and precedents are applied in a predictable way if the formal rule of law shall be considered fulfilled. Although, several shortcomings are shown in the investigation which means that the formal legal certainty can not be considered to exist in full. It is mainly experts’ tendency to draw different conclusions based on the same material that is problematized, but also the fact that courts sometimes double count circumstances when evaluating the expert opinion.
Finally, proposals are made for how the procedures can be changed in order to increase legal certainty. First of all, it is stated that the courts should not add circumstances to the evaluation of the evidence as this increases the risk of double counting. Henceforth, the expert opinion should be supplemented if it is subject to some uncertainty, in trials with crimes that have a high penalty value, the statement should always be supplemented. Lastly, both the transparency and the predictability increases if the expert is heard in court, which increases the chance of materially correct judgments and also increases the prerequisite for a process characterized of legal certainty.}},
author = {{Jonson, Linn}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Vanföreställning eller verklighet? - En granskning av domstolarnas bevisvärdering av rättspsykiatriska sakkunnigutlåtanden}},
year = {{2019}},
}