Rättssäkerhet vs. effektivitet - En rättsvetenskaplig studie om det föreslagna kronvittnessystemet och förhållandet mellan effektivitet kontra rättssäkerhet i domstolsprocessen
(2022) LAGF03 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The following essay investigates the proposed crown witness legislation, by initially describing the applicable law and the concrete law proposal, in order to answer the purpose of the essay.
To give the reader a greater understanding of why a crown witness system hasn’t previously been established, the essay describes how mitigation of punishment has been developed in Swedish law, and how crown witnesses have been mentioned in connection to this. The essay finds that the current mitigation system has its beginning in a law reform that came into force in 1989, and that the next major change took place in 2015 when a new basis of mitigation was established, for participation in the investigation of one’s own crime. As far as crown... (More) - The following essay investigates the proposed crown witness legislation, by initially describing the applicable law and the concrete law proposal, in order to answer the purpose of the essay.
To give the reader a greater understanding of why a crown witness system hasn’t previously been established, the essay describes how mitigation of punishment has been developed in Swedish law, and how crown witnesses have been mentioned in connection to this. The essay finds that the current mitigation system has its beginning in a law reform that came into force in 1989, and that the next major change took place in 2015 when a new basis of mitigation was established, for participation in the investigation of one’s own crime. As far as crown witnesses are concerned, this has been discussed several times in various reports, both in a briefly manner but also with greater focus sometimes.
Eventually, this led to an investigation in which crown witnesses were investigated on its own, instead of being discussed in connection with other matters. The inquiry finds that a new basis for mitigation of punishment should be introduced for participation in the investigation of someone else’s crime as part of countermeasures to serious, organized crime and to increase prosecution.
The prosecutor and the defendant shall be given an opportunity to cooperate, and if the information meets a certain criteria, the prosecutor is to form an opinion about the size of the mitigation of punishment and send a sanction proposal along with the lawsuit to the court. This is only the prosecutor’s assessment of the matter, and the court should not be bound by this.
Most of the referral bodies supported the proposal, mainly due to the efficiency the proposal entails, but the essay also describes some of the referral bodies who disapproved of the proposal and the arguments made against such a system. The essay then describes how the implementation of a crown witness system has taken place in Norway, so that the reader can get a better understanding of how it would theoretically work in Sweden.
The analysis part of the essay discusses whether the proposal can be considered legally secure and compatible with several legal procedural principles. The essay finds that it is possible to argue that the proposal is well-balanced and that it should not conflict with legal security, and that it is in line with practice from the European Court of Justice. However, the unregulated application of the system in the proposal risks creating inconsistent and unpredictable practice, where equal treatment is also disregarded, as well as legal security.
Finally, the essay discusses whether efficiency considerations should take precedence, and if the proposal’s contradiction to some of these principles impedes the introduction of the legislation. Due to how the Swedish democracy is built and the rule of law, the essay finds that it is too dangerous to override the rule of law and legal security to achieve a more effective prosecution system. Therefore, the proposal should not be introduced with regard to the risks and to protect the Swedish legal process and the rights of the defendants. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Följande uppsats behandlar det föreslagna kronvittnessystemet, genom att inledningsvis redogöra för gällande rätt och det konkreta författningsförslaget, för att sedan besvara uppsatsens syfte med hjälp av det material som framlagts.
För att ge läsaren en utökad förståelse för den historiska aspekten, och varför det inte tidigare instiftats ett kronvittnessystem, redogörs för hur strafflindring har utvecklats i svensk rätt, samt hur kronvittnen har nämnts i samband med detta. Uppsatsen finner att det nuvarande strafflindringssystemet har sin början i den lagreform som trädde i kraft 1989, och att nästa stora förändring skedde 2015 när en ny strafflindringsgrund lades till om medverkan till utredningen av egen brottslighet. Vad gäller... (More) - Följande uppsats behandlar det föreslagna kronvittnessystemet, genom att inledningsvis redogöra för gällande rätt och det konkreta författningsförslaget, för att sedan besvara uppsatsens syfte med hjälp av det material som framlagts.
För att ge läsaren en utökad förståelse för den historiska aspekten, och varför det inte tidigare instiftats ett kronvittnessystem, redogörs för hur strafflindring har utvecklats i svensk rätt, samt hur kronvittnen har nämnts i samband med detta. Uppsatsen finner att det nuvarande strafflindringssystemet har sin början i den lagreform som trädde i kraft 1989, och att nästa stora förändring skedde 2015 när en ny strafflindringsgrund lades till om medverkan till utredningen av egen brottslighet. Vad gäller kronvittnen har detta diskuterats flertalet gånger i olika betänkanden, till en början översiktligt och därefter med större fokus.
Till slut gav detta upphov till en utredning där kronvittnen behandlades som en egen utredningsfråga. Utredningen finner att det bör införas en ny strafflindringsgrund vid medverkan till utredningen av annans brottslighet som en del av motverkandet av allvarlig, organiserad brottslighet och för att öka lagföringen. Åklagaren och den tilltalade ska samarbeta för att åklagaren ska kunna bilda sig en uppfattning kring strafflindringens storlek, och slutligen ska ett påföljdsförslag skickas in till domstolen med stämningsansökan. Domstolen ska dock inte vara bunden av detta.
En stor del av remissinstanserna tillstyrkte förslaget, främst med anledning av den effektivitetshänsyn förslaget innebär. Uppsatsen skildrar dock även några av de remissinstanser som avstyrkte förslaget och redogör för argumenten mot ett sådant system. Därefter behandlas hur implementeringen av ett kronvittnessystem har fungerat i Norge, för att få en bättre bild av hur det skulle fungera i Sverige.
I uppsatsens analysdel diskuteras om förslaget kan anses vara rättssäkert och vara förenligt med grundläggande rättsprocessuella principer. Uppsatsen finner att det är möjligt att argumentera för att förslaget är väl avvägt och att det vid rätt tillämpning inte bör strida mot rättssäkerheten i linje med Europadomstolens praxis. Den i förslaget oreglerade tillämpningen av systemet riskerar dock att skapa en oenhetlig och oförutsebar praxis, där likabehandling åsidosätts, och likaså rättssäkerheten.
Sammanfattningsvis tar uppsatsen ställning till om effektivitetshänsynen bör ha företräde, och om införandet av bestämmelsen hindras av diskrepansen gentemot principerna. Med anledning av den svenska demokratins och rättsordningens grundbultar menar uppsatsen att det är alltför farligt att åsidosätta rättssäkerheten för att uppnå ett mer effektivt lagföringssystem. Med beaktande av att det riskerar att strida mot den svenska rättssäkerheten, bör författningsförslaget inte införas för att skydda den svenska domstolsprocessen och de tilltalades rättigheter. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081353
- author
- Fjellström, Karl Hugo LU
- supervisor
-
- Karol Nowak LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, processrätt, straffprocessrätt, kronvittnen, rättssäkerhet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9081353
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 09:26:26
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 09:26:26
@misc{9081353,
abstract = {{The following essay investigates the proposed crown witness legislation, by initially describing the applicable law and the concrete law proposal, in order to answer the purpose of the essay.
To give the reader a greater understanding of why a crown witness system hasn’t previously been established, the essay describes how mitigation of punishment has been developed in Swedish law, and how crown witnesses have been mentioned in connection to this. The essay finds that the current mitigation system has its beginning in a law reform that came into force in 1989, and that the next major change took place in 2015 when a new basis of mitigation was established, for participation in the investigation of one’s own crime. As far as crown witnesses are concerned, this has been discussed several times in various reports, both in a briefly manner but also with greater focus sometimes.
Eventually, this led to an investigation in which crown witnesses were investigated on its own, instead of being discussed in connection with other matters. The inquiry finds that a new basis for mitigation of punishment should be introduced for participation in the investigation of someone else’s crime as part of countermeasures to serious, organized crime and to increase prosecution.
The prosecutor and the defendant shall be given an opportunity to cooperate, and if the information meets a certain criteria, the prosecutor is to form an opinion about the size of the mitigation of punishment and send a sanction proposal along with the lawsuit to the court. This is only the prosecutor’s assessment of the matter, and the court should not be bound by this.
Most of the referral bodies supported the proposal, mainly due to the efficiency the proposal entails, but the essay also describes some of the referral bodies who disapproved of the proposal and the arguments made against such a system. The essay then describes how the implementation of a crown witness system has taken place in Norway, so that the reader can get a better understanding of how it would theoretically work in Sweden.
The analysis part of the essay discusses whether the proposal can be considered legally secure and compatible with several legal procedural principles. The essay finds that it is possible to argue that the proposal is well-balanced and that it should not conflict with legal security, and that it is in line with practice from the European Court of Justice. However, the unregulated application of the system in the proposal risks creating inconsistent and unpredictable practice, where equal treatment is also disregarded, as well as legal security.
Finally, the essay discusses whether efficiency considerations should take precedence, and if the proposal’s contradiction to some of these principles impedes the introduction of the legislation. Due to how the Swedish democracy is built and the rule of law, the essay finds that it is too dangerous to override the rule of law and legal security to achieve a more effective prosecution system. Therefore, the proposal should not be introduced with regard to the risks and to protect the Swedish legal process and the rights of the defendants.}},
author = {{Fjellström, Karl Hugo}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Rättssäkerhet vs. effektivitet - En rättsvetenskaplig studie om det föreslagna kronvittnessystemet och förhållandet mellan effektivitet kontra rättssäkerhet i domstolsprocessen}},
year = {{2022}},
}