Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Bortom (o)rimligt tvivel? En kritisk granskning av beviskravet i brottmål

Nilsson, Felicia LU (2023) LAGF03 20232
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
A fundamental principle in criminal proceedings is that no person should be convicted of a crime he or she has not committed. This is achieved partly by placing the burden of proof on the prosecutor, partly by having a high standard of proof. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is not regulated by law. Instead, it has been developed and established in court practice. It was in NJA 1980 s. 725 that the Supreme Court established that the prosecutor is required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court is therefore obliged to acquit if there may be reasonable and considerable doubt. To have a real possibility of convicting those who are guilty of committing crimes, law and order requires that a certain... (More)
A fundamental principle in criminal proceedings is that no person should be convicted of a crime he or she has not committed. This is achieved partly by placing the burden of proof on the prosecutor, partly by having a high standard of proof. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is not regulated by law. Instead, it has been developed and established in court practice. It was in NJA 1980 s. 725 that the Supreme Court established that the prosecutor is required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court is therefore obliged to acquit if there may be reasonable and considerable doubt. To have a real possibility of convicting those who are guilty of committing crimes, law and order requires that a certain degree of uncertainty is allowed. The exact extent of the doubt and what is considered “reasonable” has not been defined. It is therefore up to the court to make that assessment.
The standard of proof consists of two requirements: a requirement of sufficient support and a requirement of sufficient investigation. The first requirement entails that the evidence must provide sufficient support for the statement of the criminal act as charged, while the second requirement aims at what has been investigated and whether this investigation is sufficient. The requirements are cumulative, which means that both must be met for the defendant's guilt to be beyond reasonable doubt.
There are certain cases in which evidential difficulties typically occur. Neither legislation nor court practice provides support for a lowering of the standard of proof solely due to evidential difficulties. In several cases the Supreme Court has underlined the fact that this high standard of proof applies even when evidential difficulties are at hand. Despite this, there are decisions where the Supreme Court has expressed a lower standard of proof without any further justification or reference to specific conditions or circumstances.
The conclusion that can be draw from this essay's review is that the high level of the standard of proof is debated, but most often considered to be justified. If innocent people are convicted of serious crimes in more than just exceptional cases, it would mean that we have a justice system that is not functioning in an acceptable way. The starting point is that the high standard of proof must be applied on all types of crime, but certain exceptions do occur in practice. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
En grundläggande princip inom brottmålsprocessen är att ingen ska bli dömd för ett brott som den inte begått. Denna princip upprätthålls dels genom att bevisbördan är placerad på åklagaren, dels genom att höga krav ställs på bevisningens styrka. Beviskravet finns inte lagstadgat, utan det har utvecklats och slagits fast i praxis. Det var i NJA 1980 s. 725 som domstolen slog fast att det för en fällande dom krävs att åklagaren kan bevisa att den tilltalades skuld är ställd ”bortom rimligt tvivel”. Domstolen är således skyldig att meddela en frikännande dom om den bedömer att det kan finnas ett rimligt och beaktansvärt tvivel. För att det däremot ska finnas en reell möjlighet att fälla de som faktiskt har begått brott, fordrar... (More)
En grundläggande princip inom brottmålsprocessen är att ingen ska bli dömd för ett brott som den inte begått. Denna princip upprätthålls dels genom att bevisbördan är placerad på åklagaren, dels genom att höga krav ställs på bevisningens styrka. Beviskravet finns inte lagstadgat, utan det har utvecklats och slagits fast i praxis. Det var i NJA 1980 s. 725 som domstolen slog fast att det för en fällande dom krävs att åklagaren kan bevisa att den tilltalades skuld är ställd ”bortom rimligt tvivel”. Domstolen är således skyldig att meddela en frikännande dom om den bedömer att det kan finnas ett rimligt och beaktansvärt tvivel. För att det däremot ska finnas en reell möjlighet att fälla de som faktiskt har begått brott, fordrar rättssäkerheten att en viss mån av osäkerhet tillåts. Exakt hur stort detta tvivel får vara och vad som anses vara ”rimligt” har inte definierats. Det är således upp till domstolen att göra denna bedömning.
Att det inte får föreligga något rimligt tvivel är egentligen ett dubbelt krav. Det innebär dels ett krav på tillräckligt stöd, dels ett krav på tillräcklig utredning. Det första kravet handlar om att utredningen av omständigheterna i målet ska ge tillräckligt stöd åt gärningsbeskrivningen, medan det andra kravet tar sikte på vad som utretts och om denna utredning är tillräcklig. Kraven är kumulativa, vilket medför att båda måste vara uppfyllda för att den tilltalades skuld ska vara ställd bortom rimligt tvivel.
Det finns vissa fall i vilka det typiskt sett förekommer bevissvårigheter. Varken lagstiftning eller praxis ger stöd för en sänkning av beviskravet enbart på grund av att detta, och HD har i flera fall understrukit att det höga beviskravet gäller även när det förekommer sådana svårigheter. Trots detta finns det avgöranden där HD har gett uttryck för ett lägre beviskrav, men då utan någon närmare motivering eller hänvisning till specifika förhållanden eller omständigheter.
Slutsatsen som kan dras av uppsatsens granskning är att beviskravets höga höjd är omdiskuterad, men att den allt som oftast anses vara motiverad. Om oskyldiga döms för grova brott i mer än bara undantagsfall, så skulle detta
innebära att rättsväsendet inte fungerar på ett godtagbart sätt. Utgångspunkten är att det höga beviskravet ska tillämpas i alla typer av brott, men vissa undantag förekommer i praktiken. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Felicia LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20232
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Criminal law, Beviskrav, Brottmål
language
Swedish
id
9143143
date added to LUP
2024-02-02 12:23:53
date last changed
2024-02-02 12:23:53
@misc{9143143,
  abstract     = {{A fundamental principle in criminal proceedings is that no person should be convicted of a crime he or she has not committed. This is achieved partly by placing the burden of proof on the prosecutor, partly by having a high standard of proof. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is not regulated by law. Instead, it has been developed and established in court practice. It was in NJA 1980 s. 725 that the Supreme Court established that the prosecutor is required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court is therefore obliged to acquit if there may be reasonable and considerable doubt. To have a real possibility of convicting those who are guilty of committing crimes, law and order requires that a certain degree of uncertainty is allowed. The exact extent of the doubt and what is considered “reasonable” has not been defined. It is therefore up to the court to make that assessment.
The standard of proof consists of two requirements: a requirement of sufficient support and a requirement of sufficient investigation. The first requirement entails that the evidence must provide sufficient support for the statement of the criminal act as charged, while the second requirement aims at what has been investigated and whether this investigation is sufficient. The requirements are cumulative, which means that both must be met for the defendant's guilt to be beyond reasonable doubt.
There are certain cases in which evidential difficulties typically occur. Neither legislation nor court practice provides support for a lowering of the standard of proof solely due to evidential difficulties. In several cases the Supreme Court has underlined the fact that this high standard of proof applies even when evidential difficulties are at hand. Despite this, there are decisions where the Supreme Court has expressed a lower standard of proof without any further justification or reference to specific conditions or circumstances.
The conclusion that can be draw from this essay's review is that the high level of the standard of proof is debated, but most often considered to be justified. If innocent people are convicted of serious crimes in more than just exceptional cases, it would mean that we have a justice system that is not functioning in an acceptable way. The starting point is that the high standard of proof must be applied on all types of crime, but certain exceptions do occur in practice.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Felicia}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Bortom (o)rimligt tvivel? En kritisk granskning av beviskravet i brottmål}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}