Advanced

Justitieråds straffansvar i tjänsteutövningen – en rättshistorisk och nordisk-komparativ belysning

Norrman, Johannes LU (2020) LAGF03 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Förevarande kandidatuppsats undersöker justitieråds konstitutionella straffansvar för brott begångna i tjänsteutövningen ur en rättshistorisk och nordisk-komparativ belysning. Hur regleras tjänstebrott på högsta juridiska nivå i svensk statsrätt, och är regleringen, bedömd utifrån regeringsformens grundläggande principer, tillfredsställande? För att besvara dessa frågor utreder uppsatsen justitieråds straffansvar i tjänsteutövningen såsom den ser ut i gällande rätt, och sätter denna ordning i en rättshistorisk och komparativ kontext.

Historiskt (1809-1974) svarade justitieråden inför riksrätten, en extraordinär domstol utanför den vanliga instansordningen. Justitieråds straffansvar i tjänsten var vidare inskränkt jämfört med vanliga... (More)
Förevarande kandidatuppsats undersöker justitieråds konstitutionella straffansvar för brott begångna i tjänsteutövningen ur en rättshistorisk och nordisk-komparativ belysning. Hur regleras tjänstebrott på högsta juridiska nivå i svensk statsrätt, och är regleringen, bedömd utifrån regeringsformens grundläggande principer, tillfredsställande? För att besvara dessa frågor utreder uppsatsen justitieråds straffansvar i tjänsteutövningen såsom den ser ut i gällande rätt, och sätter denna ordning i en rättshistorisk och komparativ kontext.

Historiskt (1809-1974) svarade justitieråden inför riksrätten, en extraordinär domstol utanför den vanliga instansordningen. Justitieråds straffansvar i tjänsten var vidare inskränkt jämfört med vanliga domares, och riksrätten i sig utgjorde ett led i förverkligandet av den utpräglade maktdelningslära som genomsyrade 1809 års RF. Reglerna blev efterhand föråldrade, och åtskilliga olika moderniseringsförslag lades fram innan 1974 års RF slutligen antogs.

Regeringen och riksdagen valde i samband med införandet av den nya grundlagen att avskaffa riksrätten, och i stället överföra dess uppgifter till Högsta domstolen. Norge och Finland däremot, använder sig alltjämt av ett riksrättsinstitut. Till skillnad från vad som är fallet i de övriga jämförda länderna, får alltså svenska Högsta domstolen numera själv bedöma lagenligheten av sina egna ledamöters agerande i tjänsten.

Med hänsyn till risken för jäv och anti-konstitutionell maktförskjutning som denna lösning medför, är uppsatsens slutsats att den nuvarande regleringen befinner sig i konflikt med de grundläggande principerna om objektivitet, legalitet och folksuveränitet i regeringsformen. Reglerna är därför i behov av reform. (Less)
Abstract
This bachelor's thesis examines the constitutional criminal liability of Swedish Supreme Court Justices for judicial misconduct, from a historical and Nordic-comparative perspective. How has the problem of judicial misconduct on the highest level been solved in Swedish constitutional law, and is the solution, judged in light of the ambitions inherent in the Swedish constitution, satisfactory? To answer these questions, the current criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices in Chapter 11 § 8 of the Swedish Instrument of Government is thoroughly investigated, and put into a historical and comparative context.

Between 1809 and 1974, Supreme Court Justices could be tried for judicial misconduct before the Impeachment Court, an... (More)
This bachelor's thesis examines the constitutional criminal liability of Swedish Supreme Court Justices for judicial misconduct, from a historical and Nordic-comparative perspective. How has the problem of judicial misconduct on the highest level been solved in Swedish constitutional law, and is the solution, judged in light of the ambitions inherent in the Swedish constitution, satisfactory? To answer these questions, the current criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices in Chapter 11 § 8 of the Swedish Instrument of Government is thoroughly investigated, and put into a historical and comparative context.

Between 1809 and 1974, Supreme Court Justices could be tried for judicial misconduct before the Impeachment Court, an extraordinary court outside the normal court hierarchy. The criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices was narrower than for normal judges, and the Impeachment Court was part of the old constitution’s balance of power. As time went on, the regulation started to show it’s age, and several different suggestions for modernization were put forth before the new constitution was adopted in 1974.

The government and parliament abolished the Impeachment Court in the new constitution of 1974, and transferred its mandate directly to the Supreme Court itself. Norway and Finland, however, still use Impeachment Courts. The Swedish Supreme Court, unlike what was the case historically and still is the case in the compared Nordic countries, is thus allowed to judge the legality of the conduct of its own Justices.

Considering especially the risk of bias and anti-constitutional power-grabs in this construction, the paper concludes that the current rules regarding the criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices for judicial misconduct are partly at odds with the fundamental principles of objectivity, legality and popular sovereignty in the Swedish constitution. The rules are thus in need of reform. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Norrman, Johannes LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20201
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Statsrätt, straffrätt, processrätt, justitieråd
language
Swedish
id
9009095
date added to LUP
2020-09-17 13:43:14
date last changed
2020-09-17 13:43:14
@misc{9009095,
  abstract     = {This bachelor's thesis examines the constitutional criminal liability of Swedish Supreme Court Justices for judicial misconduct, from a historical and Nordic-comparative perspective. How has the problem of judicial misconduct on the highest level been solved in Swedish constitutional law, and is the solution, judged in light of the ambitions inherent in the Swedish constitution, satisfactory? To answer these questions, the current criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices in Chapter 11 § 8 of the Swedish Instrument of Government is thoroughly investigated, and put into a historical and comparative context.
 
Between 1809 and 1974, Supreme Court Justices could be tried for judicial misconduct before the Impeachment Court, an extraordinary court outside the normal court hierarchy. The criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices was narrower than for normal judges, and the Impeachment Court was part of the old constitution’s balance of power. As time went on, the regulation started to show it’s age, and several different suggestions for modernization were put forth before the new constitution was adopted in 1974. 

The government and parliament abolished the Impeachment Court in the new constitution of 1974, and transferred its mandate directly to the Supreme Court itself. Norway and Finland, however, still use Impeachment Courts. The Swedish Supreme Court, unlike what was the case historically and still is the case in the compared Nordic countries, is thus allowed to judge the legality of the conduct of its own Justices. 

Considering especially the risk of bias and anti-constitutional power-grabs in this construction, the paper concludes that the current rules regarding the criminal liability of Supreme Court Justices for judicial misconduct are partly at odds with the fundamental principles of objectivity, legality and popular sovereignty in the Swedish constitution. The rules are thus in need of reform.},
  author       = {Norrman, Johannes},
  keyword      = {Statsrätt,straffrätt,processrätt,justitieråd},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Justitieråds straffansvar i tjänsteutövningen – en rättshistorisk och nordisk-komparativ belysning},
  year         = {2020},
}