Är domstolen expert på att värdera experter? - Domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisning
(2019) LAGF03 20192Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The purpose of expert evidence in criminal proceeding’s is to provide the court with specialized knowledge. Expert evidence is characterized by a certain complexity, but the nature of the evidence as a form of proof means that the court is required to evaluate its value as evidence. The purpose of this thesis is to examine what difficulties and consequences of the court's assessments of expert evidence may be associated with. Furthermore, this essay will examine whether prosecutors and defence attorneys might impact the court’s capability to make a correct evaluation of expert evidence.
The study will illustrate the inherent conflict of knowledge which occurs when the actors in court are confronted with the assessment of complex expert... (More) - The purpose of expert evidence in criminal proceeding’s is to provide the court with specialized knowledge. Expert evidence is characterized by a certain complexity, but the nature of the evidence as a form of proof means that the court is required to evaluate its value as evidence. The purpose of this thesis is to examine what difficulties and consequences of the court's assessments of expert evidence may be associated with. Furthermore, this essay will examine whether prosecutors and defence attorneys might impact the court’s capability to make a correct evaluation of expert evidence.
The study will illustrate the inherent conflict of knowledge which occurs when the actors in court are confronted with the assessment of complex expert evidence, and the risks that they are faced with, when adequate abilities to assess the same are lacking. This thesis presents cases in which expert participation has been contributing to erroneous judgments, of what appears to be a consequence of the fact that the expert evidence has been overvalued, misinterpreted or not sufficiently subjected to critical reviewing. Therefore, since it can be difficult for the court to verify the accuracy of the expert evidence it usually has a significant impact on the courts evaluation of evidence and for the outcome of the decision.
This thesis furthermore states that the defence expert evidence can have an impact on the assessment of the prosecutors assertions and expert evidences are sustainable. The possibilities for the defendant and his defense attorney to provide expert evidence are however limited for various reasons. When the defense lacks sufficient possibilities to invoke expert evidence to demonstrate deficiencies in the prosecutors expert evidence as a result it also means that the defendant risks being convicted of a crime on materially incorrect grounds. There are reasons to consider whether the defense´s possibility to provide expert evidence can be better guaranteed in order to ensure the defendant´s legal security. Due to the fact that expert evidence usually has a major impact on the courts’ assessments the possibility of establishing a system of quality assurance of expert statements should also be investigated. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Sakkunnigbevisningens roll i brottmålsprocessen är att tillhandahålla domstolen särskild sakkunskap. Sakkunnigbevisningen kännetecknas av en viss komplexitet, men bevisets karaktär av bevismedel medför att domstolen ska pröva dess bevisvärde. Framställningen syftar till att undersöka vilka svårigheter och konsekvenser som domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisning kan vara förenad med. Därutöver utreds det huruvida åklagare och försvarsadvokater kan påverka domstolens förutsättningar att göra en korrekt bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisningen.
Framställningen kommer illustrera den inneboende kunskapskonflikt som uppstår när rättens aktörer ställs inför bedömning av komplexa kunskapsområden och de risker som det för med sig, när... (More) - Sakkunnigbevisningens roll i brottmålsprocessen är att tillhandahålla domstolen särskild sakkunskap. Sakkunnigbevisningen kännetecknas av en viss komplexitet, men bevisets karaktär av bevismedel medför att domstolen ska pröva dess bevisvärde. Framställningen syftar till att undersöka vilka svårigheter och konsekvenser som domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisning kan vara förenad med. Därutöver utreds det huruvida åklagare och försvarsadvokater kan påverka domstolens förutsättningar att göra en korrekt bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisningen.
Framställningen kommer illustrera den inneboende kunskapskonflikt som uppstår när rättens aktörer ställs inför bedömning av komplexa kunskapsområden och de risker som det för med sig, när adekvata möjligheter att bedöma desamma saknas. I uppsatsen belyses rättspraxis, där expertmedverkan har kommit att bidra till felaktiga domar, av vad som förefaller vara en konsekvens av att sakkunnigbevisningen har övervärderats, feltolkats eller inte i tillräcklig mån utsatts för kritisk granskning. Sakkunnigbevisningen får då betydelse för domstolens bevisvärdering och för utgången i målet, eftersom domstolen har begränsade möjligheter att kontrollera riktigheten av sakkunnigbevisningen.
Uppsatsen kommer även påvisa att försvarares sakkunnigbevisning kan få stor betydelse för prövningen om åklagarens påståenden och sakkunnigbevisning är hållfasta. Möjligheterna att ombesörja sakkunnigbevisning för den tilltalade och dennes försvar är dock av olika skäl begränsade. När försvaret saknar tillräckliga möjligheter att åberopa sakkunnigbevisning för att påvisa brister i åklagarens sakkunnigbevisning innebär det att den tilltalade riskerar att fällas till ansvar för brott, på materiellt felaktiga grunder. Det finns anledning att överväga huruvida försvarets möjligheter att ombesörja sakkunnigbevisning bättre kan tillgodoses, för att på så vis kunna säkerställa den tilltalades rättssäkerhetsintressen. Ett system för kvalitetssäkring av sakkunnigutlåtanden bör även utredas, med anledning av att sakkunnigbevisning ofta får stor betydelse för domstolarnas bedömning, men i nuläget inte kvalitetssäkras. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9003518
- author
- Reich Zackrisson, Paula LU
- supervisor
-
- Tova Bennet LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20192
- year
- 2019
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9003518
- date added to LUP
- 2020-04-08 00:31:15
- date last changed
- 2020-04-08 00:31:15
@misc{9003518,
abstract = {{The purpose of expert evidence in criminal proceeding’s is to provide the court with specialized knowledge. Expert evidence is characterized by a certain complexity, but the nature of the evidence as a form of proof means that the court is required to evaluate its value as evidence. The purpose of this thesis is to examine what difficulties and consequences of the court's assessments of expert evidence may be associated with. Furthermore, this essay will examine whether prosecutors and defence attorneys might impact the court’s capability to make a correct evaluation of expert evidence.
The study will illustrate the inherent conflict of knowledge which occurs when the actors in court are confronted with the assessment of complex expert evidence, and the risks that they are faced with, when adequate abilities to assess the same are lacking. This thesis presents cases in which expert participation has been contributing to erroneous judgments, of what appears to be a consequence of the fact that the expert evidence has been overvalued, misinterpreted or not sufficiently subjected to critical reviewing. Therefore, since it can be difficult for the court to verify the accuracy of the expert evidence it usually has a significant impact on the courts evaluation of evidence and for the outcome of the decision.
This thesis furthermore states that the defence expert evidence can have an impact on the assessment of the prosecutors assertions and expert evidences are sustainable. The possibilities for the defendant and his defense attorney to provide expert evidence are however limited for various reasons. When the defense lacks sufficient possibilities to invoke expert evidence to demonstrate deficiencies in the prosecutors expert evidence as a result it also means that the defendant risks being convicted of a crime on materially incorrect grounds. There are reasons to consider whether the defense´s possibility to provide expert evidence can be better guaranteed in order to ensure the defendant´s legal security. Due to the fact that expert evidence usually has a major impact on the courts’ assessments the possibility of establishing a system of quality assurance of expert statements should also be investigated.}},
author = {{Reich Zackrisson, Paula}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Är domstolen expert på att värdera experter? - Domstolens bevisvärdering av sakkunnigbevisning}},
year = {{2019}},
}