Tysta leken börjar nu – den som pratar åker ut? En rättsanalytisk uppsats om hur det nya kronvittnessystemet kommit till uttryck i Högsta domstolens prejudikatbildning
(2023) LAGF03 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Som ett resultat av den ökade gängkriminaliteten i Sverige, infördes den 22 juli 2022, ett kronvittnessystem som blivit enormt kritiserat från många håll. Lagstiftaren ansåg det dock vara övervägande nödvändigt med denna reglering, som framförallt avsåg införandet av 29 kap. 5 a § Brottsbalken. Lagändringen kan beskrivas som ett försök att komma ur den rådande tystnadskulturen och initiera en effektiv brottsbekämpning.
Innan införandet av lagändringen har kronvittnen endast behandlats i ett fall hos Högsta domstolen, s.k. ”Bilsprängarmålet”. Efter införandet, har ämnet berörts i ytterligare ett fall hos dem, nämligen i ”Glassplittret i väskan”. Uppsatsen undersöker hur den nya lagstiftningen kommit till uttryck i prejudikatbildningen... (More) - Som ett resultat av den ökade gängkriminaliteten i Sverige, infördes den 22 juli 2022, ett kronvittnessystem som blivit enormt kritiserat från många håll. Lagstiftaren ansåg det dock vara övervägande nödvändigt med denna reglering, som framförallt avsåg införandet av 29 kap. 5 a § Brottsbalken. Lagändringen kan beskrivas som ett försök att komma ur den rådande tystnadskulturen och initiera en effektiv brottsbekämpning.
Innan införandet av lagändringen har kronvittnen endast behandlats i ett fall hos Högsta domstolen, s.k. ”Bilsprängarmålet”. Efter införandet, har ämnet berörts i ytterligare ett fall hos dem, nämligen i ”Glassplittret i väskan”. Uppsatsen undersöker hur den nya lagstiftningen kommit till uttryck i prejudikatbildningen utifrån dess frågeställningar. Med hjälp av en rättsdogmatisk metod, undersöks gällande rätt ur ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv och ett kritiskt perspektiv.
Inledningsvis återges en bakgrund till dagens kronvittnessystem. I denna del förklaras att en kronvittnesreglering huvudsakligen innebär att domstolen, i sin påföljdsbestämning, beaktar att en tilltalad medverkat i utredning av annans brott. I det svenska påföljdssystemet faller kronvittnesbestämmelsen inom ramen för de straffmildrande omständigheterna vilket innebär att den tilltalade kan komma att få en reducerad påföljd.
Innan lagstiftningen kom att träda i kraft fanns enbart möjligheten till strafflindring vid medverkan i utredning av egen brottslighet. I ”Bilsprängarmålet” tillämpade Högsta domstolen dock ett undantag när de beaktade de allvarliga repressalier som den tilltalade hade drabbats av, i samband med hans uppgiftslämnande. Detta baserades på 29 kap. 5 § 8 punkten Brottsbalken. I analysen har domen visat sig ha en effekt på det nya avgörandet eftersom de förde liknande resonemang, och därmed sänkte straffet med hänsyn till både den tilltalades medverkan som sådan och den konsekventa hotbilden. I analysen problematiseras rättsutvecklingen utifrån aspekten att belöna kronvittnet på två separata strafflindringsgrunder som egentligen kan uppfattas som en sammanhängande enhet.
Därutöver diskuteras kravet på medverkan i väsentlig betydelse som fastställts i det senaste avgörandet. Kravet ger uttryck för en lägre tröskel än vad som kan uppfattas vid första anblick. Detta tyder alltjämt på en prejudikatutveckling som torde stämma överens med lagstiftarens avsikt. (Less) - Abstract
- As a result of the increased gang violence in Sweden, a crown witness system was introduced on July 22, 2022, which has been widely criticized. However, the legislator considered such regulation to be predominantly necessary. By introducing a new paragraph, ch. 29 § 5 a in the Swedish Criminal Code, the legislation can be described as an attempt to escape the culture of silence and initiate an effective law enforcement.
Before the law was enforced, the Supreme Court has dealt with only one case that concerned a crown witness, called the “Car bomb case”. After its enforcement, the subject matter has been regarded in another case of the Supreme Court, specifically in the “Bag with shards of glass”. This essay examines how the new... (More) - As a result of the increased gang violence in Sweden, a crown witness system was introduced on July 22, 2022, which has been widely criticized. However, the legislator considered such regulation to be predominantly necessary. By introducing a new paragraph, ch. 29 § 5 a in the Swedish Criminal Code, the legislation can be described as an attempt to escape the culture of silence and initiate an effective law enforcement.
Before the law was enforced, the Supreme Court has dealt with only one case that concerned a crown witness, called the “Car bomb case”. After its enforcement, the subject matter has been regarded in another case of the Supreme Court, specifically in the “Bag with shards of glass”. This essay examines how the new legislation has been expressed in the development of precedents. Using a legal dogmatic method, the current law is analyzed from both a legal development perspective and a critical perspective.
Initially, a background to today's crown witness system is presented. It explains that a crown witness regulation essentially means that the court, during the sentencing matter, is considerate of the defendant’s participation in the investigation of another person’s crime. Within the Swedish penalty system, the crown witness legislation offers a mitigating factor resulting in the defendant receiving a lower sentence.
Before the legislation came into force, there has only existed a possibility of a reduced sentence for participating in an investigation of one's own crime. However, in the “Car bomb case", the Supreme Court applied an exception where they regarded the serious reprisals that the defendant had suffered due to his witnessing. Their adjudication was based on ch. 29 § 5 item 8 in the Swedish Criminal Code. In the analysis, the verdict has been shown to have had an influence on the new ruling in the “Bag with shards of glass”. They applied similar reasoning, thereby reducing the sentence due to his participation as a crown witness and due to the threating image he now had. In the analysis, the legal development is problematized based on the aspect of rewarding the crown witness on two separate grounds despite being perceived as one coherent unit.
In addition, the requirement for participation in a significant sense is discussed, which is established in the latest verdict. The requirement expresses a lower threshold than what can be perceived at first glance. Furthermore, it can be stated that the development of precedent seems to be corresponding to the intentions of the legislature. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9112927
- author
- Jazera, Sara LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Straffrätt, criminal law, kronvittne, kronvittnen, prejudikat, tystnadskulturen, repressalier, strafflindring
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9112927
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-29 13:04:02
- date last changed
- 2023-06-29 13:04:02
@misc{9112927,
abstract = {{As a result of the increased gang violence in Sweden, a crown witness system was introduced on July 22, 2022, which has been widely criticized. However, the legislator considered such regulation to be predominantly necessary. By introducing a new paragraph, ch. 29 § 5 a in the Swedish Criminal Code, the legislation can be described as an attempt to escape the culture of silence and initiate an effective law enforcement.
Before the law was enforced, the Supreme Court has dealt with only one case that concerned a crown witness, called the “Car bomb case”. After its enforcement, the subject matter has been regarded in another case of the Supreme Court, specifically in the “Bag with shards of glass”. This essay examines how the new legislation has been expressed in the development of precedents. Using a legal dogmatic method, the current law is analyzed from both a legal development perspective and a critical perspective.
Initially, a background to today's crown witness system is presented. It explains that a crown witness regulation essentially means that the court, during the sentencing matter, is considerate of the defendant’s participation in the investigation of another person’s crime. Within the Swedish penalty system, the crown witness legislation offers a mitigating factor resulting in the defendant receiving a lower sentence.
Before the legislation came into force, there has only existed a possibility of a reduced sentence for participating in an investigation of one's own crime. However, in the “Car bomb case", the Supreme Court applied an exception where they regarded the serious reprisals that the defendant had suffered due to his witnessing. Their adjudication was based on ch. 29 § 5 item 8 in the Swedish Criminal Code. In the analysis, the verdict has been shown to have had an influence on the new ruling in the “Bag with shards of glass”. They applied similar reasoning, thereby reducing the sentence due to his participation as a crown witness and due to the threating image he now had. In the analysis, the legal development is problematized based on the aspect of rewarding the crown witness on two separate grounds despite being perceived as one coherent unit.
In addition, the requirement for participation in a significant sense is discussed, which is established in the latest verdict. The requirement expresses a lower threshold than what can be perceived at first glance. Furthermore, it can be stated that the development of precedent seems to be corresponding to the intentions of the legislature.}},
author = {{Jazera, Sara}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Tysta leken börjar nu – den som pratar åker ut? En rättsanalytisk uppsats om hur det nya kronvittnessystemet kommit till uttryck i Högsta domstolens prejudikatbildning}},
year = {{2023}},
}