Advanced

En fråga om sannolikhet - Bedömningen av flera osäkra rättsfakta

Åkesson, Henrik LU (2019) LAGF03 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
This study illustrates the problem of the legal assessment regarding the existence of several uncertain dispositive facts. In order for a dispositive fact to be considered proven, it has to be made probable to the degree that corresponds to the evidentiary requirement. However, there are divided opinions on how to reach the evidentiary requirement as several uncertain dispositive facts are subject to the court's review. Should each fact be assessed individually or is it the total degree of probability that should correspond to the evidentiary requirement? If the facts are cumulative, the likelihood of the existence of several dispositive facts is less than that of each individual fact. However, if they are alternative, the overall... (More)
This study illustrates the problem of the legal assessment regarding the existence of several uncertain dispositive facts. In order for a dispositive fact to be considered proven, it has to be made probable to the degree that corresponds to the evidentiary requirement. However, there are divided opinions on how to reach the evidentiary requirement as several uncertain dispositive facts are subject to the court's review. Should each fact be assessed individually or is it the total degree of probability that should correspond to the evidentiary requirement? If the facts are cumulative, the likelihood of the existence of several dispositive facts is less than that of each individual fact. However, if they are alternative, the overall probability is greater than that of each individual. The different methods can thus lead to different outcomes.

The traditional sources of law provide little guidance regarding this problem. Furthermore, the discussion in the Swedish doctrine has primarily been focused on cumulative facts, while the assessment of alternative facts has been treated quite sparingly. Therefore, an analytical method was used to analyze the problem using other sources. The use of Norwegian doctrine, case law from lower courts and probability calculations has thus led to a freer analysis. Rulings from the Swedish Supreme Court have also been reviewed to examine the court’s assessment of alternative facts, attributable to alternative grounds.

The analysis has led to the conclusion that the total probability should be subject to the court’s review. If a legal rule stipulates that several cumulative facts must be fulfilled, the court should assess them together. If a legal rule contains alternative conditions, the assessment should instead aim at whether any alternative has existed. However, if the alternatives are attributable to different legal rules, one should be more cautious. If there is no close connection between the various alternatives, they should be kept separate. However, if such a relationship exists, a joint assessment should be made. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna studie belyser problematiken kring den rättsliga bedömningen avseende existensen av flera osäkra rättsfakta. För att ett rättsfaktum ska anses bevisat behöver det göras sannolikt till den grad som motsvarar beviskravet. Det råder dock delade meningar om hur beviskravet ska uppnås då flera osäkra rättsfakta är föremål för rättens prövning. Ska varje rättsfaktum bedömas för sig eller är det den totala sannolikhetsgraden som ska motsvara beviskravet? Är omständigheterna kumulativa blir sannolikheten för att flera rättsfakta förelegat mindre än den för varje enskilt faktum. Är de istället alternativa blir den totala sannolikheten större än den för varje enskilt alternativ. De olika bedömningssätten kan således medföra olika utgångar.

... (More)
Denna studie belyser problematiken kring den rättsliga bedömningen avseende existensen av flera osäkra rättsfakta. För att ett rättsfaktum ska anses bevisat behöver det göras sannolikt till den grad som motsvarar beviskravet. Det råder dock delade meningar om hur beviskravet ska uppnås då flera osäkra rättsfakta är föremål för rättens prövning. Ska varje rättsfaktum bedömas för sig eller är det den totala sannolikhetsgraden som ska motsvara beviskravet? Är omständigheterna kumulativa blir sannolikheten för att flera rättsfakta förelegat mindre än den för varje enskilt faktum. Är de istället alternativa blir den totala sannolikheten större än den för varje enskilt alternativ. De olika bedömningssätten kan således medföra olika utgångar.

De traditionella rättskällorna ger ingen större ledning i hur bedömningen bör ske. Vidare har diskussionen i den svenska doktrinen främst avsett kumulativa rättsfakta, medan bedömningen av alternativa rättsfakta endast behandlats sparsamt. Då det funnits ett behov att analysera ämnet med hjälp av andra källor har en rättsanalytisk metod tillämpats. Norsk doktrin, underrättspraxis och sannolikhetsuträkningar har undersökts, vilket medfört en friare analys. En genomgång har även skett av Högsta domstolens bedömning i mål där alternativa rättsfakta varit hänförbara till olika alternativa grunder.

Analysen har medfört slutsatsen att den sammanlagda sannolikheten bör vara föremål för rättens prövning. Stadgar en rättsregel att flera kumulativa omständigheter måste vara uppfyllda bör rätten pröva om samtliga förelegat. Innehåller en rättsregel alternativa rekvisit bör bedömningen istället ta sikte på om något alternativ förelegat. Är alternativen hänförbara till olika rättsregler bör bedömningen däremot vara något försiktigare. Finns det inget nära samband mellan de olika alternativen bör dessa hållas åtskilda i den rättsliga prövningen. Finns däremot ett sådant samband bör det ske en gemensam bedömning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Åkesson, Henrik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20192
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, sannolikhet, osäkra rättsfakta, kumulativa rättsfakta, alternativa rättsfakta, alternativa grunder.
language
Swedish
id
9005615
date added to LUP
2020-04-08 00:30:44
date last changed
2020-04-08 00:30:44
@misc{9005615,
  abstract     = {This study illustrates the problem of the legal assessment regarding the existence of several uncertain dispositive facts. In order for a dispositive fact to be considered proven, it has to be made probable to the degree that corresponds to the evidentiary requirement. However, there are divided opinions on how to reach the evidentiary requirement as several uncertain dispositive facts are subject to the court's review. Should each fact be assessed individually or is it the total degree of probability that should correspond to the evidentiary requirement? If the facts are cumulative, the likelihood of the existence of several dispositive facts is less than that of each individual fact. However, if they are alternative, the overall probability is greater than that of each individual. The different methods can thus lead to different outcomes.

The traditional sources of law provide little guidance regarding this problem. Furthermore, the discussion in the Swedish doctrine has primarily been focused on cumulative facts, while the assessment of alternative facts has been treated quite sparingly. Therefore, an analytical method was used to analyze the problem using other sources. The use of Norwegian doctrine, case law from lower courts and probability calculations has thus led to a freer analysis. Rulings from the Swedish Supreme Court have also been reviewed to examine the court’s assessment of alternative facts, attributable to alternative grounds. 

The analysis has led to the conclusion that the total probability should be subject to the court’s review. If a legal rule stipulates that several cumulative facts must be fulfilled, the court should assess them together. If a legal rule contains alternative conditions, the assessment should instead aim at whether any alternative has existed. However, if the alternatives are attributable to different legal rules, one should be more cautious. If there is no close connection between the various alternatives, they should be kept separate. However, if such a relationship exists, a joint assessment should be made.},
  author       = {Åkesson, Henrik},
  keyword      = {processrätt,sannolikhet,osäkra rättsfakta,kumulativa rättsfakta,alternativa rättsfakta,alternativa grunder.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En fråga om sannolikhet - Bedömningen av flera osäkra rättsfakta},
  year         = {2019},
}