Tillsammans och i samförstånd - En rättssäkerhetsanalys av medgärningsmannaskapets tillämpning i narkotikasmugglingsmål
(2024) LAGF03 20241Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The Swedish doctrine of co-perpetratorship, which explains when perpetrators should be considered to commit crime together, is not regulated in law but have by the legislator been delegated to the courts. In statements of the criminal act charged, co-perpetratorship is expressed as the defendants have acted “together and in concert”. The doctrine has been criticized from a perspective of the rule of law. The critique has focused on issues such as the doctrine’s tenuous and unclear legal support, that the application ena-bles judgements based on collective guilt instead of individual, and the lack of a clear delimitation towards other forms of participation in crime. In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several rulings concerning... (More)
- The Swedish doctrine of co-perpetratorship, which explains when perpetrators should be considered to commit crime together, is not regulated in law but have by the legislator been delegated to the courts. In statements of the criminal act charged, co-perpetratorship is expressed as the defendants have acted “together and in concert”. The doctrine has been criticized from a perspective of the rule of law. The critique has focused on issues such as the doctrine’s tenuous and unclear legal support, that the application ena-bles judgements based on collective guilt instead of individual, and the lack of a clear delimitation towards other forms of participation in crime. In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several rulings concerning co-perpetratorship which have raised the aspect of the rule of law as well as specifying the doctrine.
This essay has, based on these precedents analysed the applicable law and the current case law to judge if there are remaining critiques of the application of the co-perpetratorship doctrine and the use of the phrase “together and in concert” that can be made from a perspective of the rule of law and due process. The analysis was made form a starting point in the crime of narcotics smuggling, a crime that often involves several perpetrators. Due to a lack of Supreme Courts decisions, six cases from different Courts of Appeal from 2023 were analysed.
The biggest rule of law-concern in the narcotics smuggling cases seems to be the use of formulations such as “alone, or together and in concert with someone” in criminal charges. Through such formulations, the expression loses the specificity it once held as well as limits the accused possibilities to construct an effective defence. The critique concerning sweeping assessments and collective guilt have largely been met by the precedent underlining the requirement of proof on the individual level, proving both actions and “understanding”. The doctrine of co-perpetratorship seems to have evolved from a focus on the different actions to what type of under-standing in which they were made. The critique concerning the unclear legal support remains unanswered. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Den svenska medgärningsläran, hur situationer där personer än en ska ses som gärningsmän, inte reglerad i lag utan är av lagstiftaren överlämnat till rättstillämparen. I gärningsbeskrivningar uttrycks medgärningsmannaskap som att de tilltalade har agerat ”tillsammans och i samförstånd”. Medgär-ningsläran har kritiserats från ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. Kritiken har rört frågor som det svaga och oklara lagstödet, att begreppets oklarhet öppnat upp för tillämpningen av kollektiv skuld i stället för individuell och den oklara gränsen till andra former av medverkan. De senaste åren har HD avkunnat flera avgöranden som rör medgärning, vilka både lyft rättssäkerhetsaspekten och preciserat medgärningsmannaskapsbegreppet.
Denna uppsats har... (More) - Den svenska medgärningsläran, hur situationer där personer än en ska ses som gärningsmän, inte reglerad i lag utan är av lagstiftaren överlämnat till rättstillämparen. I gärningsbeskrivningar uttrycks medgärningsmannaskap som att de tilltalade har agerat ”tillsammans och i samförstånd”. Medgär-ningsläran har kritiserats från ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. Kritiken har rört frågor som det svaga och oklara lagstödet, att begreppets oklarhet öppnat upp för tillämpningen av kollektiv skuld i stället för individuell och den oklara gränsen till andra former av medverkan. De senaste åren har HD avkunnat flera avgöranden som rör medgärning, vilka både lyft rättssäkerhetsaspekten och preciserat medgärningsmannaskapsbegreppet.
Denna uppsats har utifrån dessa prejudikat analyserat gällande rätt och samtida praxis för att bedöma huruvida det finns återstående rättssäkerhetsbrister i tillämpningen av medgärningsläran och särskilt användningen av formuleringen ”tillsammans och i samförstånd”. Utgångspunkten för analysen har varit narkotikasmugglingsmål vilka ofta rör situationer med flera gärningsmän. I brist på HD-avgöranden i frågan analyserades sex hovrättsfall från 2023 där gärningsmännens ageranden skett ”tillsammans och i samförstånd”.
Den största rättssäkerhetsbristen i narkotikasmugglingsmålen synes vara användningar av typen ”ensam eller tillsammans och i samförstånd med annan”. Genom sådana både förlorar uttrycket den specificering den en gång inneburit och begränsar möjligheten för den tilltalade att effektivt utforma sitt försvar. Den kritik som kretsat kring svepande bedömningar och kollektiv skuld har till stor del blivit bemött i HD:s prejudikat som be-tonar kravet på bevisning på individnivå, både för ageranden och för sam-förstånd. Medverkansläran synes ha utvecklats, från ett fokus på vilken typ av gärning som utförts, till ett fokus på vilken typ av samförstånd eller förståelse som gärningarna utförs i. Kritiken om det oklara lagstödet kan anses obesvarad. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9152469
- author
- Petersson, Ebba LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, medgärningsmannaskap, rättssäkerhet, narkotikasmuggling
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9152469
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-26 12:12:51
- date last changed
- 2024-06-26 12:12:51
@misc{9152469,
abstract = {{The Swedish doctrine of co-perpetratorship, which explains when perpetrators should be considered to commit crime together, is not regulated in law but have by the legislator been delegated to the courts. In statements of the criminal act charged, co-perpetratorship is expressed as the defendants have acted “together and in concert”. The doctrine has been criticized from a perspective of the rule of law. The critique has focused on issues such as the doctrine’s tenuous and unclear legal support, that the application ena-bles judgements based on collective guilt instead of individual, and the lack of a clear delimitation towards other forms of participation in crime. In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several rulings concerning co-perpetratorship which have raised the aspect of the rule of law as well as specifying the doctrine.
This essay has, based on these precedents analysed the applicable law and the current case law to judge if there are remaining critiques of the application of the co-perpetratorship doctrine and the use of the phrase “together and in concert” that can be made from a perspective of the rule of law and due process. The analysis was made form a starting point in the crime of narcotics smuggling, a crime that often involves several perpetrators. Due to a lack of Supreme Courts decisions, six cases from different Courts of Appeal from 2023 were analysed.
The biggest rule of law-concern in the narcotics smuggling cases seems to be the use of formulations such as “alone, or together and in concert with someone” in criminal charges. Through such formulations, the expression loses the specificity it once held as well as limits the accused possibilities to construct an effective defence. The critique concerning sweeping assessments and collective guilt have largely been met by the precedent underlining the requirement of proof on the individual level, proving both actions and “understanding”. The doctrine of co-perpetratorship seems to have evolved from a focus on the different actions to what type of under-standing in which they were made. The critique concerning the unclear legal support remains unanswered.}},
author = {{Petersson, Ebba}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Tillsammans och i samförstånd - En rättssäkerhetsanalys av medgärningsmannaskapets tillämpning i narkotikasmugglingsmål}},
year = {{2024}},
}