Bevisvärdering i brottmål i ljuset av Balkongfallet
(2023) JURM02 20231Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract
- In Sweden, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To be convicted of a crime, it is also required that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator acted against a penal provision. The court is entrusted with the task of determining whether the contrary has been proven or not. Based on the investigation and evidence presented for and against the specific charges, the court must evaluate whether the charge is "established beyond reasonable doubt".
The court is given some instructions through law on how this can be appropriately carried out. The instruction is primarily found in Chapter 35, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. This legal provision states that the court must make a diligent examination... (More) - In Sweden, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To be convicted of a crime, it is also required that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator acted against a penal provision. The court is entrusted with the task of determining whether the contrary has been proven or not. Based on the investigation and evidence presented for and against the specific charges, the court must evaluate whether the charge is "established beyond reasonable doubt".
The court is given some instructions through law on how this can be appropriately carried out. The instruction is primarily found in Chapter 35, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. This legal provision states that the court must make a diligent examination of everything that has come up in the case and then decide what has been proven. The provision does not establish much more than that there is a free evaluation of evidence of the evidence that the parties have invoked in the case. However, the legislator stipulates through Chapter 35, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure that circumstances that are generally known and current Swedish law do not require any evidence. Therefore, the court has the right to use notorious facts and experiential propositions in its evaluation of evidence. Moreover, it follows from Chapter 17, Section 2 and Chapter 30, Section 2, which stipulate the so-called immediacy principle, that the decision may only be based on such material that has occurred at the main hearing.
The above paragraph presents, in principle, the exhaustive frameworks that the Swedish national law has established for the court's evaluation of evidence. What methods and theories of proof that the court should use for the evaluation of evidence to be conscientious has been left for the courts to determine. The courts in Sweden have received some guidance from the Supreme Court. This essay investigates what this guidance entails and how the courts, as well as other court jurists in criminal cases, can apply these in practice. The essay also investigates whether there exists a useful tool that judges and other court jurists can employ in their evaluation of evidence in accord-ance with the guidance of the Supreme Court. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I Sverige är personer oskyldiga till dess att motsatsen är bevisad. För att dömas till ansvar för brott krävs dessutom att det är bevisat bortom rimligt tvivel att gärningspersonen agerat mot ett straffbud. Det är domstolen som har bördan att avgöra ifall motsatsen är bevisad eller inte. Domstolen ska utifrån den presenterade utredning och bevisning som föreligger för och emot de specifika åtalspunkterna, bevisvärdera om åtalet är ”ställt bortom rimligt tvivel” eller ej.
Domstolen har via lag fått vissa instruktioner om hur detta lämpligen kan gå till. Instruktionen hittas främst i 35 kap. 1 § rättegångsbalken. Lagrummet stadgar att domstolen skall göra en samvetsgrann prövning av allt som förekommit målet och därefter avgöra vad som... (More) - I Sverige är personer oskyldiga till dess att motsatsen är bevisad. För att dömas till ansvar för brott krävs dessutom att det är bevisat bortom rimligt tvivel att gärningspersonen agerat mot ett straffbud. Det är domstolen som har bördan att avgöra ifall motsatsen är bevisad eller inte. Domstolen ska utifrån den presenterade utredning och bevisning som föreligger för och emot de specifika åtalspunkterna, bevisvärdera om åtalet är ”ställt bortom rimligt tvivel” eller ej.
Domstolen har via lag fått vissa instruktioner om hur detta lämpligen kan gå till. Instruktionen hittas främst i 35 kap. 1 § rättegångsbalken. Lagrummet stadgar att domstolen skall göra en samvetsgrann prövning av allt som förekommit målet och därefter avgöra vad som är bevisat. Lagrummet slår inte fast mycket mer än att det råder fri bevisprövning och bevisvärdering av den bevisföring som parterna åberopat i målet. Lagstiftaren stadgar emellertid genom 35 kap. 2 § rättegångsbalken att omständigheter som är allmänt veterliga och gällande svensk rätt inte kräver någon bevisning. Domstolen har alltså rätt att i sin bevisvärdering använda sig av notoriska fakta och erfarenhetssatser. Vidare följer av 17 kap. 2 § och 30 kap. 2 §, som stipulerar den så kallade omedelbarhetsprincipen, att avgörandet endast får grundas på sådant material som förekommit vid huvudförhandlingen.
Stycket ovan presenterar i princip uttömmande de ramar som Sverige rikes lag byggt upp för domstolens bevisvärdering. Vilka bevismetoder och bevisteorier som domstolen ska använda sig av för att bevisvärderingen ska bli samvetsgrann har lagstiftaren lämnat till domstolarna att avgöra. Domstolarna i Sverige har fått viss vägledning från Högsta domstolen. Uppsatsen undersöker vad vägledningen innebär och hur domstolarna men även övriga domstolsjurister i brottmål kan applicera dessa i praktiken. Uppsatsen tar också reda på om det finns ett bra hjälpmedel som domare och övriga domstolsjurister kan använda sig av när de bevisvärderar i enlighet med Högsta domstolens vägledning. Uppsatsen tar också reda på om det finns ett bra hjälpmedel som domare och övriga domstolsjurister kan använda sig av när de bevisvärderar i enlighet med Högsta domstolens vägledning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9116181
- author
- Pepaj, Niko LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Evaluation of Evidence in Criminal Cases in Light of the Balcony Case
- course
- JURM02 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- allmän rättslära, straffrätt, bevisrätt, bevisvärdering, bevisprövning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9116181
- date added to LUP
- 2023-06-08 12:06:55
- date last changed
- 2023-06-08 12:06:55
@misc{9116181,
abstract = {{In Sweden, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To be convicted of a crime, it is also required that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator acted against a penal provision. The court is entrusted with the task of determining whether the contrary has been proven or not. Based on the investigation and evidence presented for and against the specific charges, the court must evaluate whether the charge is "established beyond reasonable doubt".
The court is given some instructions through law on how this can be appropriately carried out. The instruction is primarily found in Chapter 35, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. This legal provision states that the court must make a diligent examination of everything that has come up in the case and then decide what has been proven. The provision does not establish much more than that there is a free evaluation of evidence of the evidence that the parties have invoked in the case. However, the legislator stipulates through Chapter 35, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure that circumstances that are generally known and current Swedish law do not require any evidence. Therefore, the court has the right to use notorious facts and experiential propositions in its evaluation of evidence. Moreover, it follows from Chapter 17, Section 2 and Chapter 30, Section 2, which stipulate the so-called immediacy principle, that the decision may only be based on such material that has occurred at the main hearing.
The above paragraph presents, in principle, the exhaustive frameworks that the Swedish national law has established for the court's evaluation of evidence. What methods and theories of proof that the court should use for the evaluation of evidence to be conscientious has been left for the courts to determine. The courts in Sweden have received some guidance from the Supreme Court. This essay investigates what this guidance entails and how the courts, as well as other court jurists in criminal cases, can apply these in practice. The essay also investigates whether there exists a useful tool that judges and other court jurists can employ in their evaluation of evidence in accord-ance with the guidance of the Supreme Court.}},
author = {{Pepaj, Niko}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Bevisvärdering i brottmål i ljuset av Balkongfallet}},
year = {{2023}},
}