Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Tidiga bevis till vilken nytta? - en kritisk analys av 35 kap. 15 § rättegångsbalken och dess tillämpning

Johansson, Britta Elisabet LU (2024) JURM02 20241
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
A reform on Swedish procedural law was implemented on 1 January 2022. Among other things, a new legal on evidence rule was introduced in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, chapter 35, sector 15 (35:15 RB). The provision brought new opportunities to allow the playback of video interrogations as evidence before the court, something that had previously only been possible under certain conditions. Thus, the change in law meant a loosening of the principle of immediacy in taking of evidence, which is one of the dominating principles of Swedish procedural law. Meanwhile, 35:15 RB stipulates that the court, before deciding to allow video interrogations to be played out, must undertake a suitability assessment. The video interrogation can... (More)
A reform on Swedish procedural law was implemented on 1 January 2022. Among other things, a new legal on evidence rule was introduced in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, chapter 35, sector 15 (35:15 RB). The provision brought new opportunities to allow the playback of video interrogations as evidence before the court, something that had previously only been possible under certain conditions. Thus, the change in law meant a loosening of the principle of immediacy in taking of evidence, which is one of the dominating principles of Swedish procedural law. Meanwhile, 35:15 RB stipulates that the court, before deciding to allow video interrogations to be played out, must undertake a suitability assessment. The video interrogation can also be supplemented with additional interrogations during the trial.
The change in the law was made primarily to overcome rampant costs for major trials. In addition, 35:15 RB aimed to reduce the risk of undue influence in cases linked to organized crime, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence, but also to obtain more materially correct sentences by means of early evidence. Prior to the change in the law, there was criticism that the provision did not make any difference to existing provisions on the hearing of evidence and would therefore have limited or no benefit at all. There were also concerns that the suitability assessment that the court must make before the playback could entail a ban on evidence, which would be contrary to the principle of free examination of evidence.
In this essay, the application of 35:15 RB is examined from a critical utility perspective, to see what conclusions can be drawn about the expectations of effect that existed in the preparatory work before the change in law. The focus of the essay is an empirical study of district court judgments and the analysis thereof. The investigation showed that 35:15 RB was applied in at least 126 criminal cases. Of these, only 10% were categorized as organized crime or major criminal cases. The crime category that accounted for most of the applied cases, 58%, was violence in intimate relationships where assault was the most common crime classification. The analysis also shows that alternative provisions could have been used instead of 35:15 RB in most cases when the interrogated person no longer wants to participate in the trial or retracts his or her story. The supplementary hearing does not appear to add any substantial evidentiary value, which is why the benefit of 35:15 RB in this regard is difficult to find. Other conclusions drawn are that 35:15 RB has not been applied to organized crime and major criminal cases to the extent intended by the legislature. Nor can any significant cost efficiency be seen because of the new law. The essay's research confirms to some extent the fears that the provision in 35:15 RB would lead to an evidence ban because the video interview is given negligible evidentiary value in many cases when additional interviews could not be held. In summary, the overall benefit of 35:15 RB is small. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Tidiga bevis-reformen genomfördes 1 januari 2022, vilket innebar en modernisering av processrätten. Bland annat infördes en ny lagregel, 35:15 RB. Bestämmelsen medförde nya möjligheter att tillåta uppspelning av videoförhör som bevis inför rätten, något som tidigare varit möjligt enbart under vissa förutsättningar. Således innebar lagändringen en uppluckring i bevisomedelbarhetsprincipen, vilket är en av de processrättsliga principer som dominerar svensk processrätt. Samtidigt stadgar 35:15 RB att rätten, inför beslut om att tillåta uppspelning av videoförhör, ska göra en lämplighetsbedömning. Videoförhöret kan även kompletteras med tilläggsförhör under rättegången.
Lagändringen hade processekonomiska förtecken och gjordes främst för att... (More)
Tidiga bevis-reformen genomfördes 1 januari 2022, vilket innebar en modernisering av processrätten. Bland annat infördes en ny lagregel, 35:15 RB. Bestämmelsen medförde nya möjligheter att tillåta uppspelning av videoförhör som bevis inför rätten, något som tidigare varit möjligt enbart under vissa förutsättningar. Således innebar lagändringen en uppluckring i bevisomedelbarhetsprincipen, vilket är en av de processrättsliga principer som dominerar svensk processrätt. Samtidigt stadgar 35:15 RB att rätten, inför beslut om att tillåta uppspelning av videoförhör, ska göra en lämplighetsbedömning. Videoförhöret kan även kompletteras med tilläggsförhör under rättegången.
Lagändringen hade processekonomiska förtecken och gjordes främst för att få bukt med skenande kostnader för rättegångar med stora brottmål. Därutöver syftade 35:15 RB till att i mål kopplade till organiserad brottslighet, ungdomsbrottslighet och våld i nära relationer minska risken för otillåten påverkan samt att medelst tidig bevisning få mer materiellt riktiga domar.
Inför lagändringen framkom kritik om att bestämmelsen inte utgjorde någon skillnad mot befintliga bestämmelser om bevisupptagning och därför skulle ha begränsad nytta eller ingen nytta alls. Det fanns även farhågor om att lämplighetsbedömningen som rätten ska göra inför uppspelningen kunde innebära bevisförbud, något som skulle strida mot principen om fri bevisprövning.
I förevarande uppsats undersöks tillämpningen av 35:15 RB utifrån ett kritiskt nyttoperspektiv, för att se vilka slutsatser som kan dras om de förväntningar på effekt som fanns i förarbetena inför lagändringen. Tyngdpunkten i uppsatsen är en empirisk studie och analys av tingsrättsdomar. Undersökningen visar på att 35:15 RB tillämpats i minst 126 brottmål. Av dessa kategoriserades endast 10 % som organiserad brottslighet eller stora brottmål. Den brottskategori som stod för majoriteten av de tillämpade fallen, 58 %, var våld i nära relationer där misshandel var den mest förekommande brottsrubriceringen.
Undersökningen visar även att alternativa bestämmelser hade kunnat användas i stället för 35:15 RB i absoluta merparten av fallen då förhörspersonen inte längre vill medverka i rättegången eller tar tillbaka sin berättelse. Tilläggsförhöret visar sig inte tillföra något bevisvärde av vikt, varför nyttan med 35:15 RB i detta avseende är svår att se.
Övriga slutsatser som dras är att 35:15 RB inte har tillämpats på organiserad brottslighet och stora brottmål i den omfattning som lagstiftaren avsåg. Någon kostnadseffektivitet av betydelse kan inte heller ses till följd av lagändringen. Uppsatsens undersökning bekräftar till viss del farhågorna om att bestämmelsen i 35:15 RB skulle leda till ett bevisförbud eftersom videoförhöret tillmäts försumbart bevisvärde i många fall när tilläggsförhör inte kunnat hållas. Den totala nyttan med 35:15 RB är sammanfattningsvis liten. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Britta Elisabet LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Early evidence to what benefit?
course
JURM02 20241
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, straffprocessrätt, bevis, förhör
language
Swedish
id
9153226
date added to LUP
2024-06-05 16:03:42
date last changed
2024-06-05 16:03:42
@misc{9153226,
  abstract     = {{A reform on Swedish procedural law was implemented on 1 January 2022. Among other things, a new legal on evidence rule was introduced in The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, chapter 35, sector 15 (35:15 RB). The provision brought new opportunities to allow the playback of video interrogations as evidence before the court, something that had previously only been possible under certain conditions. Thus, the change in law meant a loosening of the principle of immediacy in taking of evidence, which is one of the dominating principles of Swedish procedural law. Meanwhile, 35:15 RB stipulates that the court, before deciding to allow video interrogations to be played out, must undertake a suitability assessment. The video interrogation can also be supplemented with additional interrogations during the trial.
The change in the law was made primarily to overcome rampant costs for major trials. In addition, 35:15 RB aimed to reduce the risk of undue influence in cases linked to organized crime, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence, but also to obtain more materially correct sentences by means of early evidence. Prior to the change in the law, there was criticism that the provision did not make any difference to existing provisions on the hearing of evidence and would therefore have limited or no benefit at all. There were also concerns that the suitability assessment that the court must make before the playback could entail a ban on evidence, which would be contrary to the principle of free examination of evidence.
In this essay, the application of 35:15 RB is examined from a critical utility perspective, to see what conclusions can be drawn about the expectations of effect that existed in the preparatory work before the change in law. The focus of the essay is an empirical study of district court judgments and the analysis thereof. The investigation showed that 35:15 RB was applied in at least 126 criminal cases. Of these, only 10% were categorized as organized crime or major criminal cases. The crime category that accounted for most of the applied cases, 58%, was violence in intimate relationships where assault was the most common crime classification. The analysis also shows that alternative provisions could have been used instead of 35:15 RB in most cases when the interrogated person no longer wants to participate in the trial or retracts his or her story. The supplementary hearing does not appear to add any substantial evidentiary value, which is why the benefit of 35:15 RB in this regard is difficult to find. Other conclusions drawn are that 35:15 RB has not been applied to organized crime and major criminal cases to the extent intended by the legislature. Nor can any significant cost efficiency be seen because of the new law. The essay's research confirms to some extent the fears that the provision in 35:15 RB would lead to an evidence ban because the video interview is given negligible evidentiary value in many cases when additional interviews could not be held. In summary, the overall benefit of 35:15 RB is small.}},
  author       = {{Johansson, Britta Elisabet}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Tidiga bevis till vilken nytta? - en kritisk analys av 35 kap. 15 § rättegångsbalken och dess tillämpning}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}