Bevisvärdering av indiciebevisning - En kvalitativ rättsfallsanalys
Sammanfattning: In December 2019, the police discovered a thermos bomb in an underground garage in Malmö. One of the suspects had previously been convicted of crimes similar to this and had connections to the Hells Angels motorcycle club. His DNA also matched DNA found on the cap of the thermos containing the explosive charge. The district court used his criminal record and affiliation with Hells Angels as evidence for his guilt in the new case regarding the thermos bomb. In 2020 the Court of Appeal found the man innocent. Among other things, his previous convictions and his background was valued in a different way. I could not comprehend how the district court and the Court of Appeal came to such different conclusions when their evaluation was based on the same circumstantial evidence. I therefore decided to write this thesis on the subject of evidence evaluation. The purpose of the thesis is to uncover how the courts value circumstantial evidence and whether this evaluation is consistent with basic rules and principles governing evidence evaluation in Sweden. The definition of circumstantial evidence is clearly central for the purpose of the thesis. The definition has however proven to be disparate. In doctrine various terms with different meanings are being used and in courts the ambiguous definition of circumstantial evidence created by doctrine is reflected. To investigate the essay's issues, it has thus been central to examine the concept formation and decide which term the essay should adhere to. Furthermore, it has been of great importance to decide the definition of this term. The conclusion is that the term “indiciebevisning” is the most used term and it was therefore the easiest one to use when searching for cases to study. Regarding the definition of this term, Dahlman's classification with traces of the criminal act and conditions for the criminal act was found to be the most suitable definition. The examination of the courts' evidence evaluation was carried out through a qualitative case study. The study consists of five selected cases where circumstantial evidence has been the subject of judicial review. The conclusion of the study is that the courts are heavily affected by the vague concept formation and definition of circumstantial evidence. This mostly affects the structure, and their evidence evaluation is in most cases well thought through. Certain elements can be questioned, including but not limited to the fact that some instances have chosen to dismiss evidence completely if it had low evidential value. This is highly unacceptable as it risks affecting the outcome of the case by underestimating collaborative evidence. Moreover, the evidence evaluation is largely compatible with the basic rules and principles that govern the law of evidence in Sweden. It can however be stated that it is difficult to interpret the evidence as it is rare that reasoning about the power of individual evidence, probability of origin and alternative hypotheses are explained in the reasons for the verdict. These inadequates leave room for reader interpretation and ultimately result in the accuracy of the judgments being questioned. As an example, questions can be raised in regard to the valuation of the combined power of evidence in the Mail murder. How the court found the evidence not to read the standard of proof is hard to comprehend. However, much of the evidence was not to be considered circumstantial evidence and was therefore not relevant to the thesis. The Swedish law of evidence needs a clear definition on circumstantial evidence. Forcing the courts to stop using the term is not possibility and would likely be contrary to the principle of free evidence evaluation. Choosing to determine the definition of circumstantial evidence by law would also be incompatible with basic principles governing the law of evidence. The most suitable solution is therefore a precedent from the Supreme Court stating a clear definition of circumstantial evidence.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)