Tidiga förhör i praktiken
(2023) LAGF03 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk straffprocessrätt har omedelbarhetsprincipen haft stor betydelse sedan rättegångsbalken infördes år 1948. Den innebär att domstolen bara ska döma över det som har framkommit under huvudförhandlingen. Domstolen har inte innan huvudförhandlingen läst polisens utredning, utan parter och vittnen ska komma till domstolen och lämna sin berättelse direkt inför rätten.
Den 1 januari 2022 infördes en ny regel i rättegångsbalken, 35:15. Den innebär att det är möjligt att åberopa en ljud- och bildinspelning från ett förhör inför en brottsutredande myndighet i domstol. Ett skäl för införandet av den nya regeln var att en person ofta har bättre minnesbilder när den förhörs av polisen i nära anslutning till en händelse, jämfört med om den... (More) - I svensk straffprocessrätt har omedelbarhetsprincipen haft stor betydelse sedan rättegångsbalken infördes år 1948. Den innebär att domstolen bara ska döma över det som har framkommit under huvudförhandlingen. Domstolen har inte innan huvudförhandlingen läst polisens utredning, utan parter och vittnen ska komma till domstolen och lämna sin berättelse direkt inför rätten.
Den 1 januari 2022 infördes en ny regel i rättegångsbalken, 35:15. Den innebär att det är möjligt att åberopa en ljud- och bildinspelning från ett förhör inför en brottsutredande myndighet i domstol. Ett skäl för införandet av den nya regeln var att en person ofta har bättre minnesbilder när den förhörs av polisen i nära anslutning till en händelse, jämfört med om den hörs i tingsrätten längre tid efteråt. Kritiker menar dock att den nya regeln försämrar den misstänktes rätt att försvara sig, då den misstänkte inte har tillgång till all information som krävs för att kunna ställa frågor under förundersökningen.
Det är tingsrätten som beslutar om det är lämpligt att ett förhör enligt 35:15 RB ska få spelas upp. Domstolen ska då bland annat ta hänsyn till processekonomiska skäl och rättssäkerhetsskäl. Denna uppsats har gått igenom hur paragrafen har tillämpats i praktiken och undersökt vad domstolen har beaktat när den prövat om det är lämpligt att spela upp ett förhör enligt den nya regeln. Uppsatsen belyser även hur den nya regeln har påverkat den misstänktes möjlighet att försvara sig.
Slutsatserna i uppsatsen är att tingsrätterna i allt för hög utsträckning underlåter att motivera varför det är lämpligt med en uppspelning. Som skäl för uppspelning anför ofta tingsrätterna att det är motiverat på grund av förhörspersonens ålder, att det handlar om brott i nära relation eller att personen inte vill medverka i rättsprocessen. Den tilltalades möjlighet att försvara sig har påverkats negativt i mål då uppspelning av videoförhör har skett, då denne ofta inte beretts någon möjlighet till motförhör under förundersökningen. (Less) - Abstract
- In Swedish criminal procedure law, the principle of immediateness has been of great significance since the code of judicial procedure came into effect in 1948. This implies that the court should only judge and present verdicts based on what has appeared during the main hearing. Hence, the court will not have read the pre-trial investigation before the main hearing. Instead, the implicated parties and any potential witnesses must present themselves at the hearing and give their account directly to the court.
On January 1, 2022, a new article came in to effect in the Swedish criminal procedural law: 35:15. The article prescribes that it is possible to refer to an audio/video recording from prior interrogations conducted by a criminal... (More) - In Swedish criminal procedure law, the principle of immediateness has been of great significance since the code of judicial procedure came into effect in 1948. This implies that the court should only judge and present verdicts based on what has appeared during the main hearing. Hence, the court will not have read the pre-trial investigation before the main hearing. Instead, the implicated parties and any potential witnesses must present themselves at the hearing and give their account directly to the court.
On January 1, 2022, a new article came in to effect in the Swedish criminal procedural law: 35:15. The article prescribes that it is possible to refer to an audio/video recording from prior interrogations conducted by a criminal investigation authority in court. A reason for the passing of this article is that a person is deemed to have better recollection of events when being questioned in close connection to an incident, compared to being heard in a district court, possibly a relatively long period of time after an incident. On the other hand, those who are critical of the new law claim that this regulation impairs the suspect's principal right of defence.
It is the district court that decides whether it is appropriate for an investigation to enact the new article (35:15 RB) and give permission for audio/video recordings to be used in the main hearing. In making that decision, the court must - among other things, consider procedural economic reasons and the suspect’s right of defense. This essay has reviewed how the article has been applied in practice and examined what the court has taken into account when considering whether it is appropriate to play back a recording of an interrogation under the new article. The essay also highlights how the new article has affected the suspect’s possibilities of defending himself.
The conclusions of the essay are that the district courts all too often fail to justify why it is appropriate to play back recordings in main hearings. It is often stated by the district courts that the disclosure and use of recorded files is justified due to; the age of the person being interrogated, that the crime committed is in a close relationship, or that the implied person does not want to take part in the legal process. Thus, the suspect's opportunity to defend himself has been impacted negatively in cases when audio/video interrogations have been played back and used as evidence against the suspect, in the sense that the suspect and defence lawyers are often not given the opportunity to ask questions to the interrogator, and counter examinate during the pre-trial investigation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116057
- author
- Boltegård Blom, Erik LU
- supervisor
-
- Sandra Ahrén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, straffrätt, tidiga förhör, 35 kap. 15 § rättegångsbalken, videoförhör
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9116057
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-29 13:23:49
- date last changed
- 2023-06-29 13:23:49
@misc{9116057,
abstract = {{In Swedish criminal procedure law, the principle of immediateness has been of great significance since the code of judicial procedure came into effect in 1948. This implies that the court should only judge and present verdicts based on what has appeared during the main hearing. Hence, the court will not have read the pre-trial investigation before the main hearing. Instead, the implicated parties and any potential witnesses must present themselves at the hearing and give their account directly to the court.
On January 1, 2022, a new article came in to effect in the Swedish criminal procedural law: 35:15. The article prescribes that it is possible to refer to an audio/video recording from prior interrogations conducted by a criminal investigation authority in court. A reason for the passing of this article is that a person is deemed to have better recollection of events when being questioned in close connection to an incident, compared to being heard in a district court, possibly a relatively long period of time after an incident. On the other hand, those who are critical of the new law claim that this regulation impairs the suspect's principal right of defence.
It is the district court that decides whether it is appropriate for an investigation to enact the new article (35:15 RB) and give permission for audio/video recordings to be used in the main hearing. In making that decision, the court must - among other things, consider procedural economic reasons and the suspect’s right of defense. This essay has reviewed how the article has been applied in practice and examined what the court has taken into account when considering whether it is appropriate to play back a recording of an interrogation under the new article. The essay also highlights how the new article has affected the suspect’s possibilities of defending himself.
The conclusions of the essay are that the district courts all too often fail to justify why it is appropriate to play back recordings in main hearings. It is often stated by the district courts that the disclosure and use of recorded files is justified due to; the age of the person being interrogated, that the crime committed is in a close relationship, or that the implied person does not want to take part in the legal process. Thus, the suspect's opportunity to defend himself has been impacted negatively in cases when audio/video interrogations have been played back and used as evidence against the suspect, in the sense that the suspect and defence lawyers are often not given the opportunity to ask questions to the interrogator, and counter examinate during the pre-trial investigation.}},
author = {{Boltegård Blom, Erik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Tidiga förhör i praktiken}},
year = {{2023}},
}