Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Rättstryggheten och rättssäkerheten i rättspraxis om oaktsam våldtäkt - Uppfyller domstolarna syftena med 2018 års samtyckeslagstiftning?

Bodin, Maja LU (2024) LAGF03 20241
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I denna uppsats behandlar jag brottet oaktsam våldtäkt i den svenska brottsbalkens (BrB) 6 kap. 1 a §. Bestämmelsen infördes i samband med 2018 års lagförändringar i sexualbrottslagstiftningen, i folkmun samtyckeslagen. Straffansvar kräver bla. grov oaktsamhet i förhållande till rekvisitet den andra personens icke-frivilliga deltagande, det är häri uppsatsens fokus uteslutande ligger. Jag beskriver motiven bakom samtyckeslagen, och redogör för innebörden av skuldkravet – såsom det framgår i lagförarbeten och doktrin – i syfte att ge en bakgrund till ämnet.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att – utifrån de två enda prejudicerande rättsfall som behandlar skuldkravet grov oaktsamhet i 6 kap. 1 a § i svensk rättspraxis – utröna vilka omständigheter... (More)
I denna uppsats behandlar jag brottet oaktsam våldtäkt i den svenska brottsbalkens (BrB) 6 kap. 1 a §. Bestämmelsen infördes i samband med 2018 års lagförändringar i sexualbrottslagstiftningen, i folkmun samtyckeslagen. Straffansvar kräver bla. grov oaktsamhet i förhållande till rekvisitet den andra personens icke-frivilliga deltagande, det är häri uppsatsens fokus uteslutande ligger. Jag beskriver motiven bakom samtyckeslagen, och redogör för innebörden av skuldkravet – såsom det framgår i lagförarbeten och doktrin – i syfte att ge en bakgrund till ämnet.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att – utifrån de två enda prejudicerande rättsfall som behandlar skuldkravet grov oaktsamhet i 6 kap. 1 a § i svensk rättspraxis – utröna vilka omständigheter HD lägger vikt vid i gränsdragningen mellan medveten och omedveten oaktsamhet och att undersöka om HD i nämnda rättspraxis uppfyller syftena med 2018 års samtyckeslagstiftning. Med utgångspunkt i ett internkritiskt perspektiv inriktar jag mig på rättstrygghet och rättssäkerhet i analysen av NJA 2019 s. 668 – Övernattningen I – och NJA 2022 s. 237 – Övernattningen II.

Efter min analys av nämnda rättspraxis i förhållande till motiven kommer jag fram till att HD i sin praxis varken förtydligar, preciserar eller utvecklar rättsläget vad gäller skuldbedömningen som görs vid brottet oaktsam våldtäkt. De omständigheter HD lägger vikt vid i bedömningen överensstämmer i princip fullständigt med lagförarbetena, äldre praxis och uttalanden i hävdvunnen doktrin. Önskvärda tolkningsförsök lyser med sin frånvaro i domskälen vilket jag menar har en negativ inverkan på såväl rättstryggheten som rättssäkerheten. Vidare argumenterar jag för att HD inte uppfyller syftena med lagstiftningen, utan att det är underinstanserna, med undantag för tingsrättens majoritet i Övernattningen II, som gör det. HD försvagar i stället det skydd samtyckeslagen avsåg att skapa – domstolen synes betona gärningsmannens rättssäkerhet framför offrets rättstrygghet. (Less)
Abstract
In this essay, I present the offense negligent rape, regulated in chapter 6 paragraph 1 a in the Swedish Penal Code. The provision was established in connection with the legislative change of Sweden’s sexual offences legislation in 2018, commonly called the consent regulation. Criminal liability requires, among other, gross negligence in relation to the necessary prerequisite the other person’s non-voluntarily participation. The essay exclusively covers the mentioned part of the provision. In order to provide a background to the subject, I describe the motives behind the consent regulation and the meaning of the prerequisite gross negligence according to legislative history and literature of jurisprudence.

The starting points of the... (More)
In this essay, I present the offense negligent rape, regulated in chapter 6 paragraph 1 a in the Swedish Penal Code. The provision was established in connection with the legislative change of Sweden’s sexual offences legislation in 2018, commonly called the consent regulation. Criminal liability requires, among other, gross negligence in relation to the necessary prerequisite the other person’s non-voluntarily participation. The essay exclusively covers the mentioned part of the provision. In order to provide a background to the subject, I describe the motives behind the consent regulation and the meaning of the prerequisite gross negligence according to legislative history and literature of jurisprudence.

The starting points of the essay are the two precedents in swedish case law that deals with the prerequisite gross negligence in chapter 6 paragraph 1 a. The purpose of the essay is two-part. Firstly, my aim has been to determine which circumstances the Supreme Court puts emphasis on in the assessment of the different types of negligence in the crime negligent rape – a perpetrator can be either knowingly negligent or unknowingly negligent. Secondly, the objective of the essay has been to examine if the Swedish Supreme Court complies with the intentions of the consent regulation in its case law. On the basis of an internally critical perspective, I focus on legal certainty and the rule of law in the analysis of case NJA 2019 s. 668 – Övernattningen I (The Overnight Stay I) – and case NJA 2022 s. 237 – Övernattningen II (The Overnight Stay II).

After my analysis on the case law in relation to the motives of the regulation, I conclude that the Supreme Court neither clarifies, defines nor elaborates on the legal position regarding the prerequisite gross negligence. The circumstances the Supreme Court emphasizes in its judging corresponds in principle with legislative history, older case law and statements in established literature of jurisprudence. There is an absence of desireable attempts at interpretation in the grounds of the judgements, which I suggest has an adverse impact on legal certainty as well as the rule of law. Furthermore, I argue that the Supreme Court does not fulfill the purposes of the legislation, but the District Courts and the Courts of Appeal, with one exception, does. Instead, The Supreme Court diminishes the protection which the consent regulation intended to create – the court appears to accentuate the perpetrators rule of law ahead of the legal certainty for the victim. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Bodin, Maja LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20241
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, samtyckeslagen, oaktsam våldtäkt, våldtäkt, oaktsamhet, medveten oaktsamhet, omedveten oaktsamhet, grov oaktsamhet, likgiltighetsuppsåt, rättstrygghet, rättssäkerhet
language
Swedish
id
9152006
date added to LUP
2024-06-26 11:39:03
date last changed
2024-06-26 11:39:03
@misc{9152006,
  abstract     = {{In this essay, I present the offense negligent rape, regulated in chapter 6 paragraph 1 a in the Swedish Penal Code. The provision was established in connection with the legislative change of Sweden’s sexual offences legislation in 2018, commonly called the consent regulation. Criminal liability requires, among other, gross negligence in relation to the necessary prerequisite the other person’s non-voluntarily participation. The essay exclusively covers the mentioned part of the provision. In order to provide a background to the subject, I describe the motives behind the consent regulation and the meaning of the prerequisite gross negligence according to legislative history and literature of jurisprudence. 

The starting points of the essay are the two precedents in swedish case law that deals with the prerequisite gross negligence in chapter 6 paragraph 1 a. The purpose of the essay is two-part. Firstly, my aim has been to determine which circumstances the Supreme Court puts emphasis on in the assessment of the different types of negligence in the crime negligent rape – a perpetrator can be either knowingly negligent or unknowingly negligent. Secondly, the objective of the essay has been to examine if the Swedish Supreme Court complies with the intentions of the consent regulation in its case law. On the basis of an internally critical perspective, I focus on legal certainty and the rule of law in the analysis of case NJA 2019 s. 668 – Övernattningen I (The Overnight Stay I) – and case NJA 2022 s. 237 – Övernattningen II (The Overnight Stay II). 

After my analysis on the case law in relation to the motives of the regulation, I conclude that the Supreme Court neither clarifies, defines nor elaborates on the legal position regarding the prerequisite gross negligence. The circumstances the Supreme Court emphasizes in its judging corresponds in principle with legislative history, older case law and statements in established literature of jurisprudence. There is an absence of desireable attempts at interpretation in the grounds of the judgements, which I suggest has an adverse impact on legal certainty as well as the rule of law. Furthermore, I argue that the Supreme Court does not fulfill the purposes of the legislation, but the District Courts and the Courts of Appeal, with one exception, does. Instead, The Supreme Court diminishes the protection which the consent regulation intended to create – the court appears to accentuate the perpetrators rule of law ahead of the legal certainty for the victim.}},
  author       = {{Bodin, Maja}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Rättstryggheten och rättssäkerheten i rättspraxis om oaktsam våldtäkt - Uppfyller domstolarna syftena med 2018 års samtyckeslagstiftning?}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}