Alternativa hypoteser i rättskedjan - Förundersökning, försvar och bevisprövning

Sammanfattning: In a criminal process the main hypothesis and the alternative hypotheses are of great importance. The prosecutor uses hypotheses of both kinds at the preliminary investigation to examine how events have unfolded. The defense also contributes to the procedure and to the hypotheses formation during the preliminary investigation and the court process. When the defense formulates alternative hypotheses to the statement of the criminal act as charged, they are always in favor of the suspect. These hypotheses are designed to inflict doubt in the case. The court assessments in criminal cases are also based on multiple working hypotheses. The standard of evidence "beyond reasonable doubt”, requires the court to form hypotheses. For the prosecution to be successful, the standard of evidence requires that all reasonable hypotheses must be investigated and ruled out. This paper examines some of the procedural rules and principles that are relevant to hypothesis formation in the criminal process. Hypothesis formation has a close relationship to the size of the investigation. A material of great content imposes additional alternative hypotheses to the statement of the criminal act as charged. The assessment base thus becomes more solid if the enquiry is complete, which increases the possibility to arrive at a proper conclusion in the case. Therefore, many of the rules examined in this paper addresses how the prosecutor, the defense and the court, contribute to the investigation and how they make sure that no relevant aspects of the case have been left out. For example, the prosecutor’s principle of objectivity, the accused's right to control and the court’s responsibility to enrich the investigation will be examined. The aim of this paper is to investigate how different hypotheses should be investigated and handled within the criminal process. To connect the examination to a specific case, this paper discusses the criminal investigation and court procedures in a case called “fallet Ulf”. In that case, it was clear that the hypotheses construction and the gathering of evidence had been ineffective. This resulted in an erroneous judgment. Both the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Office of the Chancellor of Justice have investigated the case. The results of these investigations are applied in this paper to illustrate the rules of procedure and to discuss how unsuccessful hypotheses formations can affect the outcome of a case. The paper ends with a discussion of the procedural rules investigated and their contained strengths and weaknesses. One of the conclusions to be drawn from this paper is that all actors in the legal process in different ways contribute to the investigation and hypothesis formation. This is a strength within the system. This collective work is of great importance when it comes to ascertain that the assessment base is solid. It is also concluded that the court review of the preliminary investigation and the way it is conducted can be strengthened even further.