Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Sömn som försvar: En komparativ analys av sömninvändningar i svensk, norsk och dansk domstol

Dangardt, Albin LU (2024) LAGF03 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Under senare år har det både i Sverige, Danmark och Norge förekommit ett stort antal fall där tilltalade invänt att de befunnit sig i somnambula tillstånd och därmed inte kan hållas straffrättsligt ansvariga för sina gärningar. Trots att de skandinaviska ländernas hantering av sömninvändningar görs utifrån olika rättsliga utgångspunkter, har de gemensamt att det vid bedömningen är
fråga om subjektiv skuld. Medan det endast krävs uppsåt för att hållas subjektivt ansvarig för ett brott i Sverige, krävs enligt straffeloven i Danmark och Norge både tillräknelighet och uppsåt för straffrättsligt ansvar.

Synen på somnambulism ur ett rättsligt perspektiv skiljer sig vidare mellan länderna. Gärningspersoner kan anses otillräkneliga på grund av... (More)
Under senare år har det både i Sverige, Danmark och Norge förekommit ett stort antal fall där tilltalade invänt att de befunnit sig i somnambula tillstånd och därmed inte kan hållas straffrättsligt ansvariga för sina gärningar. Trots att de skandinaviska ländernas hantering av sömninvändningar görs utifrån olika rättsliga utgångspunkter, har de gemensamt att det vid bedömningen är
fråga om subjektiv skuld. Medan det endast krävs uppsåt för att hållas subjektivt ansvarig för ett brott i Sverige, krävs enligt straffeloven i Danmark och Norge både tillräknelighet och uppsåt för straffrättsligt ansvar.

Synen på somnambulism ur ett rättsligt perspektiv skiljer sig vidare mellan länderna. Gärningspersoner kan anses otillräkneliga på grund av medvetsstörningar enligt 20 § b i norska straffeloven samt enligt bestämmelsen om psykisk sjukdom enligt 16 § i danska straffeloven, i fall där domstolen ansett att det funnits fog för sömninvändningen. I Sverige kan en person som anses ha agerat i sömnen befrias från straffrättsligt ansvar med hänvisning till att det inte förelegat tillräcklig grad av medvetenhet, vilket utgör ett krav för uppsåt
enligt 1 kap. 2 § Brottsbalken och NJA 2020 s. 169. Svenska och norska domstolar hanterar därmed tillstånden som brist på medvetande medan de danska likställer tillstånden med psykisk sjukdom.

Genom en undersökning av praxis från domstolarna i de skandinaviska länderna kan det konstateras att flera aspekter av bedömningar i dessa fall har många likheter, trots skillnaderna mellan respektive straffrättsliga bestämmelser. Liknande resonemang angående subjektiv skuld och bevisvärdering, samt liknande slutsatser angående det subjektiva ansvaret tyder på att tillräknelighetsrekvisitet inte hade varit av lika stor betydelse för dessa avgöranden i svensk rätt som i dansk och norsk rätt. (Less)
Abstract
In recent years, there have been a number of cases in Sweden, Denmark and Norway where defendants have made the objection that they were in a somnambulistic state, and therefore cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. Despite the Scandinavian countries' assessments being made according to different laws, they all make an assessment concerning subjective culpability. While only criminal intent is required for subjective liability for a crime in Sweden, both sanity and criminal intent are required for criminal liability under the penal codes in Denmark and Norway.

The legal perspective on somnambulism further varies between these countries. Offenders can be deemed unaccountable due to a state of unconsciousness under 20 §... (More)
In recent years, there have been a number of cases in Sweden, Denmark and Norway where defendants have made the objection that they were in a somnambulistic state, and therefore cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. Despite the Scandinavian countries' assessments being made according to different laws, they all make an assessment concerning subjective culpability. While only criminal intent is required for subjective liability for a crime in Sweden, both sanity and criminal intent are required for criminal liability under the penal codes in Denmark and Norway.

The legal perspective on somnambulism further varies between these countries. Offenders can be deemed unaccountable due to a state of unconsciousness under 20 § b of the Norwegian Penal Code, and due to mental illness under 16 § of the Danish Penal Code in cases where the court has found the sleepwalking defense credible. In Sweden, a person deemed to have acted in a state of sleep can be acquitted of criminal liability on the grounds that there was an insufficient level of consciousness, a requirement for intent according to chapter 1, 2 § of the Swedish Penal Code and NJA 2020 p. 169. Swedish and Norwegian courts therefore treat these conditions as a lack of consciousness, while the Danish courts equate them with mental illness.

Through an examination of cases from courts in the Scandinavian countries, it can be concluded that several aspects of the assessments in these cases are
similar, despite the differences in their respective criminal regulations. Similar reasoning regarding subjective culpability and evidence evaluation,
as well as similar conclusions regarding subjective liability, suggest that the
requirement of sanity would not have been as significant for these rulings in
Swedish law as it is in Danish and Norwegian law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Dangardt, Albin LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20242
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
straffrätt, criminal law, komparativ rätt, comparative law, uppsåt, tillräknelighet, somnambulism, sömngång, sexsomni
language
Swedish
id
9179806
date added to LUP
2025-03-20 13:54:35
date last changed
2025-03-20 13:54:35
@misc{9179806,
  abstract     = {{In recent years, there have been a number of cases in Sweden, Denmark and Norway where defendants have made the objection that they were in a somnambulistic state, and therefore cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. Despite the Scandinavian countries' assessments being made according to different laws, they all make an assessment concerning subjective culpability. While only criminal intent is required for subjective liability for a crime in Sweden, both sanity and criminal intent are required for criminal liability under the penal codes in Denmark and Norway.

The legal perspective on somnambulism further varies between these countries. Offenders can be deemed unaccountable due to a state of unconsciousness under 20 § b of the Norwegian Penal Code, and due to mental illness under 16 § of the Danish Penal Code in cases where the court has found the sleepwalking defense credible. In Sweden, a person deemed to have acted in a state of sleep can be acquitted of criminal liability on the grounds that there was an insufficient level of consciousness, a requirement for intent according to chapter 1, 2 § of the Swedish Penal Code and NJA 2020 p. 169. Swedish and Norwegian courts therefore treat these conditions as a lack of consciousness, while the Danish courts equate them with mental illness.

Through an examination of cases from courts in the Scandinavian countries, it can be concluded that several aspects of the assessments in these cases are
similar, despite the differences in their respective criminal regulations. Similar reasoning regarding subjective culpability and evidence evaluation,
as well as similar conclusions regarding subjective liability, suggest that the
requirement of sanity would not have been as significant for these rulings in
Swedish law as it is in Danish and Norwegian law.}},
  author       = {{Dangardt, Albin}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Sömn som försvar: En komparativ analys av sömninvändningar i svensk, norsk och dansk domstol}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}