Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Indiciebevisning - En misslyckad begreppsbildning

Nilsson, Timmy LU (2025) LAGF03 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Eftersom fri bevisprövning råder inom svensk rätt finns det inga formella reg-ler avseende struktureringen, hanteringen eller värderingen av bevis inom brottmålsprocesser. Vägledande prejudikat och förarbetsuttalanden är svåra att finna. Som en följd av denna avsaknad av reglering har flera bevisteorier ut-vecklats inom doktrin som med hjälp av olika begreppsbildningar försöker skapa struktur på området. HD har under senare år börjat ta intryck av dessa teorier, och i detta samspel tycks en viss förvirring ha uppstått. Termer feltol-kas och förväxlas, och i centrum av denna problematik står begreppet indicie-bevisning.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur begreppet indiciebevisning har uppstått, att belysa hur en historisk utveckling... (More)
Eftersom fri bevisprövning råder inom svensk rätt finns det inga formella reg-ler avseende struktureringen, hanteringen eller värderingen av bevis inom brottmålsprocesser. Vägledande prejudikat och förarbetsuttalanden är svåra att finna. Som en följd av denna avsaknad av reglering har flera bevisteorier ut-vecklats inom doktrin som med hjälp av olika begreppsbildningar försöker skapa struktur på området. HD har under senare år börjat ta intryck av dessa teorier, och i detta samspel tycks en viss förvirring ha uppstått. Termer feltol-kas och förväxlas, och i centrum av denna problematik står begreppet indicie-bevisning.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur begreppet indiciebevisning har uppstått, att belysa hur en historisk utveckling har lett till ett diffust rättsom-råde där en konsensus kring kategorisering av bevisning saknas, samt att ifrå-gasätta huruvida användningen av begreppet utgör ett hot mot rättssäkerheten.
För att uppfylla detta syfte använder jag mig av både upphävd och gällande lagstiftning i den mån dessa är tillgängliga och besvarar mina frågeställningar. Prejudikat och förarbeten kommer användas i kompletterande syfte. Till följd av den nu gällande fria bevisprövningen är rättskällor ofta sparsamma på om-rådet. Detta medför att uppsatsens frågeställningar i viss omfattning kommer att besvaras med hjälp av doktrin. (Less)
Abstract
According to Swedish law there are no formal rules which govern the presen-tation, evaluation or structurization of evidence. As a result, questions regard-ing evidence as they pertain to criminal processes are rarely answered by the means of legal statutes, binding precedent, or legislative history. As a result of this legal vacuum several theories of evidence have been developed, mainly through legal doctrine, which attempt to bring structure to these discussions.
In recent years the Swedish Supreme Court have attempted to lay a foundation regarding the evaluation and categorization of evidence. As a result of vague and inconsistent use of legal terminology, a sense of confusion appears to have arisen. At the center of this confusion,... (More)
According to Swedish law there are no formal rules which govern the presen-tation, evaluation or structurization of evidence. As a result, questions regard-ing evidence as they pertain to criminal processes are rarely answered by the means of legal statutes, binding precedent, or legislative history. As a result of this legal vacuum several theories of evidence have been developed, mainly through legal doctrine, which attempt to bring structure to these discussions.
In recent years the Swedish Supreme Court have attempted to lay a foundation regarding the evaluation and categorization of evidence. As a result of vague and inconsistent use of legal terminology, a sense of confusion appears to have arisen. At the center of this confusion, we find the term circumstantial evidence.
The purpose of this essay is to examine the origin and development of the term circumstantial evidence. As a result of historical developments and vary-ing usage, there no longer exists a consensus regarding the meaning of the term. The main question of the essay is thus whether the vagueness of the term constitutes a threat to the principle of legal certainty.
In order to fulfill the purpose of the essay I will use both current and repealed legal statutes to the extent that these are relevant to the questions posed. Legal precedents and legislative history will be used as supplementary sources. As a result of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, concrete answers in the subject at hand are rarely answered through recognized sources of law. Legal doctrine will therefore be used to a discernible extent. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Timmy LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20242
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
allmän rättslära, rättshistoria, straffrätt, processrätt, indiciebevisning, indirekt bevisning
language
Swedish
id
9179711
date added to LUP
2025-03-20 14:16:31
date last changed
2025-03-20 14:16:31
@misc{9179711,
  abstract     = {{According to Swedish law there are no formal rules which govern the presen-tation, evaluation or structurization of evidence. As a result, questions regard-ing evidence as they pertain to criminal processes are rarely answered by the means of legal statutes, binding precedent, or legislative history. As a result of this legal vacuum several theories of evidence have been developed, mainly through legal doctrine, which attempt to bring structure to these discussions. 
In recent years the Swedish Supreme Court have attempted to lay a foundation regarding the evaluation and categorization of evidence. As a result of vague and inconsistent use of legal terminology, a sense of confusion appears to have arisen. At the center of this confusion, we find the term circumstantial evidence.
The purpose of this essay is to examine the origin and development of the term circumstantial evidence. As a result of historical developments and vary-ing usage, there no longer exists a consensus regarding the meaning of the term. The main question of the essay is thus whether the vagueness of the term constitutes a threat to the principle of legal certainty.
In order to fulfill the purpose of the essay I will use both current and repealed legal statutes to the extent that these are relevant to the questions posed. Legal precedents and legislative history will be used as supplementary sources. As a result of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, concrete answers in the subject at hand are rarely answered through recognized sources of law. Legal doctrine will therefore be used to a discernible extent.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Timmy}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Indiciebevisning - En misslyckad begreppsbildning}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}