Advanced

Otillbörlig brottsprovokation och dess rättsliga följd i straffprocessen - En analys av den provocerades ansvar i ljuset av artikel 6 EKMR och rättsteoretiska perspektiv

Sjövall, David LU (2020) JURM02 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Inom ramen för sin brottsutredande verksamhet förekommer det att polisen använder sig av provokativa åtgärder, ofta i syfte att utreda grov och organiserad brottslighet. I det fall polisen använder sig av sådana okonventionella utredningsmetoder görs det utan lagstöd. En fråga som aktualiseras i sammanhanget är huruvida den provocerade kan hållas ansvarig för ett brott som denne av polisen förmåtts begå. Tidigare var Högsta domstolens (HD) inställning att bedömningen avseende den provocerades ansvar inte påverkas av polisprovokationer som utgångspunkt. Endast i de fall provokationen ansågs ”uppenbart otillbörlig” fanns anledning att medge strafflindring.

Efter inkorporeringen av EKMR i svensk rätt blev artikel 6 EKMR och rätten till en... (More)
Inom ramen för sin brottsutredande verksamhet förekommer det att polisen använder sig av provokativa åtgärder, ofta i syfte att utreda grov och organiserad brottslighet. I det fall polisen använder sig av sådana okonventionella utredningsmetoder görs det utan lagstöd. En fråga som aktualiseras i sammanhanget är huruvida den provocerade kan hållas ansvarig för ett brott som denne av polisen förmåtts begå. Tidigare var Högsta domstolens (HD) inställning att bedömningen avseende den provocerades ansvar inte påverkas av polisprovokationer som utgångspunkt. Endast i de fall provokationen ansågs ”uppenbart otillbörlig” fanns anledning att medge strafflindring.

Efter inkorporeringen av EKMR i svensk rätt blev artikel 6 EKMR och rätten till en rättvis rättegång del av svensk rätt. Europadomstolen har i ett flertal avgöranden fastslagit att i det fall polisen använder sig av otillbörliga brottsprovokationer, sådana provokationer som förmår någon att begå ett brott som denne annars inte hade begått, kränks dennes rätt till en rättvis rättegång. Efter Europadomstolens avgörande i Teixeira de Castro stod det klart att svensk praxis inte var förenlig med de krav som ställdes av Europadomstolen. HD fastslog sedermera genom NJA 2007 s. 1037 att i det fall en otillbörlig brottsprovokation tilltagits, i strid med artikel 6 EKMR, brister det i de materiella straffbarhetsbetingelserna. Konsekvensen är att brottet inte ska åtalas och om så ändå görs ska åtalet lämnas utan bifall.

I uppsatsen nås slutsatsen att HD:s ledande avgörande i 2007 års fall är förenligt med de krav som Europadomstolen ställer på de nationella domstolarna. Vidare argumenterar jag för att HD:s avgörande är motiverat och lämpligt utifrån rättsideologiska och rättsstatliga perspektiv. En diskussion förs även om det finns anledning att i stället beakta otillbörliga brottsprovokationer genom ett bevisförbud. Avslutningsvis nås slutsatsen att det inte finns anledning att de lege ferenda ändra svensk rätt vad avser hanteringen av otillbörliga brottsprovokationer. (Less)
Abstract
The police sometimes use provocative measures in their fight against serious and organized crime. In the event that the police use such unconventional investigative methods, it is done without legislative support. A question that arises in this context is whether a person can be held responsible for a crime that he or she has been induced by the police to commit. The Swedish Supreme Court (“SSC”) has historically been reluctant towards considering provocative investigative measures in the assessment of a person’s criminal liability. A slim possibility to permit mitigation of punishment existed if the police measures were considered “evidentially inappropriate”.

Following the incorporation of the ECHR into Swedish law, article 6 of the... (More)
The police sometimes use provocative measures in their fight against serious and organized crime. In the event that the police use such unconventional investigative methods, it is done without legislative support. A question that arises in this context is whether a person can be held responsible for a crime that he or she has been induced by the police to commit. The Swedish Supreme Court (“SSC”) has historically been reluctant towards considering provocative investigative measures in the assessment of a person’s criminal liability. A slim possibility to permit mitigation of punishment existed if the police measures were considered “evidentially inappropriate”.

Following the incorporation of the ECHR into Swedish law, article 6 of the ECHR and the right to a fair trial became part of Swedish law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has in a number of rulings ruled that in the event that the police induce someone to commit a crime that they would not otherwise have committed, article 6 of the ECHR is violated. Following the ECtHR’s ruling in Teixeira de Castro, it became clear that established Swedish practice was not in line with the requirements set by the ECtHR. The SSC considered ECtHR’s rulings in the leading decision NJA 2007 s. 1037. In NJA 2007 s. 1037 the SCC ruled that in the event that someone has been subjected to police entrapment, in violation of article 6 of the ECHR, this person is not to be held legally responsible.

This thesis analyses whether the SSC’s ruling in its leading decision, NJA 2007 s. 1037, is compatible with the requirements set by the ECtHR. Furthermore, it is argued that the SSC’s ruling is justified and appropriate considering the legal ideologies permeating the Swedish legal system. Further, it is discussed whether there is reason to exclude the evidence acquired through police entrapment in violation of article 6 of the ECHR. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that there is no reason to de lege ferenda change Swedish law with regards to the legal effect of police entrapment. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sjövall, David LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Improper police entrapment and its legal effect in the criminal proceedings - An analysis of a provoked person’s criminal liability in the light of Article 6 ECHR and legal theoretical perspectives
course
JURM02 20202
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Straffrätt (en. criminal law), Brottsprovokation, Polisprovokation, Provokativa åtgärder, Otillbörlig brottsprovokation, Fri bevisföring, Bristande materiell straffbarhetsbetingelse, Straffbarhet
language
Swedish
id
9034007
date added to LUP
2021-01-26 09:02:07
date last changed
2021-01-26 09:02:07
@misc{9034007,
  abstract     = {The police sometimes use provocative measures in their fight against serious and organized crime. In the event that the police use such unconventional investigative methods, it is done without legislative support. A question that arises in this context is whether a person can be held responsible for a crime that he or she has been induced by the police to commit. The Swedish Supreme Court (“SSC”) has historically been reluctant towards considering provocative investigative measures in the assessment of a person’s criminal liability. A slim possibility to permit mitigation of punishment existed if the police measures were considered “evidentially inappropriate”.

Following the incorporation of the ECHR into Swedish law, article 6 of the ECHR and the right to a fair trial became part of Swedish law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has in a number of rulings ruled that in the event that the police induce someone to commit a crime that they would not otherwise have committed, article 6 of the ECHR is violated. Following the ECtHR’s ruling in Teixeira de Castro, it became clear that established Swedish practice was not in line with the requirements set by the ECtHR. The SSC considered ECtHR’s rulings in the leading decision NJA 2007 s. 1037. In NJA 2007 s. 1037 the SCC ruled that in the event that someone has been subjected to police entrapment, in violation of article 6 of the ECHR, this person is not to be held legally responsible. 

This thesis analyses whether the SSC’s ruling in its leading decision, NJA 2007 s. 1037, is compatible with the requirements set by the ECtHR. Furthermore, it is argued that the SSC’s ruling is justified and appropriate considering the legal ideologies permeating the Swedish legal system. Further, it is discussed whether there is reason to exclude the evidence acquired through police entrapment in violation of article 6 of the ECHR. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that there is no reason to de lege ferenda change Swedish law with regards to the legal effect of police entrapment.},
  author       = {Sjövall, David},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt (en. criminal law),Brottsprovokation,Polisprovokation,Provokativa åtgärder,Otillbörlig brottsprovokation,Fri bevisföring,Bristande materiell straffbarhetsbetingelse,Straffbarhet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Otillbörlig brottsprovokation och dess rättsliga följd i straffprocessen - En analys av den provocerades ansvar i ljuset av artikel 6 EKMR och rättsteoretiska perspektiv},
  year         = {2020},
}