Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Nödvärn - En analys av försvarlighetsbedömningen för civilpersoner och poliser

Hellberg, Erik LU (2020) LAGF03 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In Sweden, all people have a statutory right to defend its person and property from an eventual attack by another human being. The person being attacked will avoid criminal liability if the measures taken to defend himself are not to be considered manifestly indefensible. In this assessment, the court shall take into account the nature of the attack, the significance of what has been attacked and the circumstances in general. Police officers are in this aspect considered to be private individuals just as everyone else, hence the right to self-defence applies to them as well. At the same time, the police authority holds a special role in the society through law enforcement and the protective activities being conducted. It follows from the... (More)
In Sweden, all people have a statutory right to defend its person and property from an eventual attack by another human being. The person being attacked will avoid criminal liability if the measures taken to defend himself are not to be considered manifestly indefensible. In this assessment, the court shall take into account the nature of the attack, the significance of what has been attacked and the circumstances in general. Police officers are in this aspect considered to be private individuals just as everyone else, hence the right to self-defence applies to them as well. At the same time, the police authority holds a special role in the society through law enforcement and the protective activities being conducted. It follows from the police profession to more often end up in threatening and violent situations. Nevertheless, the police have extensive training in the above, some even with years of experience.

The right to self-defence in Sweden has been analyzed through the legal dogmatic method, with the object to visualize any differences in the assessment depending on whether the person prosecuted is a police officer or a civilian. The intentions of the legislature have seemingly been that no distinction should be made regarding who invokes the right to self-defence. In the analysis, however, certain differences can be ascertained. The fact that the police have used firearms in situations of self-defence is according to the court an insignificant circumstance. It is rather an obvious choice of means. In parallel, the same circumstance seems to be of significant importance when a civilian has acted in self-defence.

The fact that the court ́s assessments differ from case to case depending on who is being prosecuted is problematic in the sense that it lacks legal support. However, this does not mean that the assessments are otherwise incorrect or improper. Nor is it necessarily that police officers face a more lenient court, but rather that other circumstances are considered important when a police officer is in a situation where measures of self-defence is demanded. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I Sverige har samtliga människor en lagstadgad rätt genom 24 kap. 1 § brottsbalken att försvara sin person och egendom vid ett eventuellt angrepp från en annan människa. Förutsatt att den angripne, med hänsyn till angreppets beskaffenhet, det angripnas betydelse och omständigheterna i övrigt, försvarat sig med våld som inte varit uppenbart oförsvarligt, har denna agerat inom ramarna för gällande rätt. Eftersom poliser rent straffrättsligt betraktas som privatpersoner gäller rätten till nödvärn även för denna personkrets. Samtidigt intar den polisiära myndighetsauktoriteten en särskild samhällsroll genom den beskyddande och brottsbekämpande verksamhet som bedrivs. Polisen har en omfattande utbildning, och somliga också bred erfarenhet, av... (More)
I Sverige har samtliga människor en lagstadgad rätt genom 24 kap. 1 § brottsbalken att försvara sin person och egendom vid ett eventuellt angrepp från en annan människa. Förutsatt att den angripne, med hänsyn till angreppets beskaffenhet, det angripnas betydelse och omständigheterna i övrigt, försvarat sig med våld som inte varit uppenbart oförsvarligt, har denna agerat inom ramarna för gällande rätt. Eftersom poliser rent straffrättsligt betraktas som privatpersoner gäller rätten till nödvärn även för denna personkrets. Samtidigt intar den polisiära myndighetsauktoriteten en särskild samhällsroll genom den beskyddande och brottsbekämpande verksamhet som bedrivs. Polisen har en omfattande utbildning, och somliga också bred erfarenhet, av hotfulla och våldsamma situationer och av polisens yrkesutövning följer det att oftare hamna i de beskrivna situationerna.

Genom en rättsdogmatisk metod har analyserats om det går att åskådliggöra någon skillnad i försvarlighetsbedömningen beroende på om det är en civilperson eller en polis som står åtalad. Lagstiftarens intention har till synes varit att ingen åtskillnad ska göras beroende på vilken personkrets personen som åberopar rätten till nödvärn tillhör. Däremot kan vissa skillnader utrönas ur domstolarnas bedömningar i de analyserade rättsfallen. Att polisen i en nödvärnssituation använt skjutvapen anses inte vara en omständighet av vikt i bedömningen; att tjänstevapnet använts är snarare ett självklart val av tillvägagångssätt. Parallellt med detta är samma omständighet till synes av väsentlig betydelse i bedömningen där civilpersoner står åtalade.

Att omständigheterna som anses vara av vikt skiljer sig åt beroende på vilken personkrets målet avser, saknar i detta avseende stöd i lag. Samtidigt innebär det sagda inte per automatik att domstolarnas försvarlighetsbedömningar är oegentliga. Det handlar inte heller nödvändigtvis om att poliser står inför en mildare domstolsbedömning än vad civilpersoner gör, utan snarare att andra omständigheter bedöms vara av vikt när det är en polis som befunnit sig i en nödvärnssituation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hellberg, Erik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20202
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, criminal law, nödvärn, self-defence, självförsvar, poliser, polisnödvärn, polisvåld
language
Swedish
id
9034119
date added to LUP
2021-02-09 11:51:04
date last changed
2021-02-09 11:51:04
@misc{9034119,
  abstract     = {{In Sweden, all people have a statutory right to defend its person and property from an eventual attack by another human being. The person being attacked will avoid criminal liability if the measures taken to defend himself are not to be considered manifestly indefensible. In this assessment, the court shall take into account the nature of the attack, the significance of what has been attacked and the circumstances in general. Police officers are in this aspect considered to be private individuals just as everyone else, hence the right to self-defence applies to them as well. At the same time, the police authority holds a special role in the society through law enforcement and the protective activities being conducted. It follows from the police profession to more often end up in threatening and violent situations. Nevertheless, the police have extensive training in the above, some even with years of experience.

The right to self-defence in Sweden has been analyzed through the legal dogmatic method, with the object to visualize any differences in the assessment depending on whether the person prosecuted is a police officer or a civilian. The intentions of the legislature have seemingly been that no distinction should be made regarding who invokes the right to self-defence. In the analysis, however, certain differences can be ascertained. The fact that the police have used firearms in situations of self-defence is according to the court an insignificant circumstance. It is rather an obvious choice of means. In parallel, the same circumstance seems to be of significant importance when a civilian has acted in self-defence.

The fact that the court ́s assessments differ from case to case depending on who is being prosecuted is problematic in the sense that it lacks legal support. However, this does not mean that the assessments are otherwise incorrect or improper. Nor is it necessarily that police officers face a more lenient court, but rather that other circumstances are considered important when a police officer is in a situation where measures of self-defence is demanded.}},
  author       = {{Hellberg, Erik}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Nödvärn - En analys av försvarlighetsbedömningen för civilpersoner och poliser}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}