Att lägga ett pussel - om bevisningen i indiciemål

Sammanfattning: In this essay the judgements of the courts of law regarding circumstantial evidence, both in cases of convictions and in verdicts of acquittal, are analysed. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and elucidate the strength of circumstantial evidence in relation to the requirement of beyond reasonable doubt. An ambitious evidential requirement for a conviction in criminal cases is one of the most important requirements for the Swedish rule of law. To fulfil the purpose of this thesis, it is important to define the meaning of the terms item of circumstantial evidence and structural evidence. In the legal doctrine, circumstantial evidence is defined as indirect traces of the criminal act. For example motives, threats or subsequent actions. An item of circumstantial evidence alone can not proof or disproof a factum probandum but it can serve as a value of evidence, either for or against the factum probandum, provided that it is attributable to the structure of the evidence. Consequently the purpose of structural evidence is to depict the circumstances that altogether form a structure, which make the factum probandum explainable and comprehensible. Considering the statements of the courts of law in the eight selected cases, a number of general implications regarding circumstantial evidence can be concluded. In the case NJA 1991 p. 56 the Supreme Court stated that only in exceptional cases, a conviction can be based solely on the negative circumstance that the investigation does not appear to provide room for an alternative offender. In addition to this, it requires at least supportive evidence that elucidate the essential parts of the course of events and positively incriminates the prosecuted to the crime. This statement has gained great importance to the courts assessment of circumstantial evidence. In the case study, both weaknesses and strengths of the circumstantial evidence have been distinguished. A comparison of the cases that resulted in a conviction and in an acquittal apparently shows what kind of requirements is needed to classify a defendant's guilt as beyond reasonable doubt. A prominent weakness of the cases in which the courts of the final instances have dismissed the charges, is that the investigations shows substantial weaknesses. Reasonably, this leads to higher requirements on the circumstantial evidence. A conviction based solely on hypotheses is not consistent with the former Justice of the Supreme Court Gregow's statement regarding the standard of proof in criminal cases, the fact that it practically needs to be ruled out that the defendant is innocent. In those cases where the courts of the final instances have convicted the defendant, the lack of shortages in the investigations and presence of several circumstantial evidence with a high value of proof has led to the conclusion that alternative perpetrators have been ruled out.