Barnets röst i rätten - En analys av domstolars värderingar av barns utsagor i barnvåldtäktsmål i förhållande till rättspsykologi och rättssäkerhet

Sammanfattning: In cases of child rape, evidentiary difficulties can arise as one person’s word often stands against another’s. The courts’ primary task in these situations is to assess the reliability of the child’s oral statement. These situations are further complicated by the fact that children, according to forensic psychology research, face difficulties in presenting oral evidence of sexual abuse. For instance, children generally have limited verbal skills and vocabulary, cannot provide as coherent and detailed statements, and often delay reporting abuse, especially the most intimate details. Considering this, the thesis aims to analyze how the courts assess children’s oral statements in child rape cases without direct evidence. It investigates how the courts adhere to the reliability criteria set by the Supreme Court and forensic psychological factors that can affect children’s memory and narration. Furthermore, the thesis aims to analyze and problematize potential consequences for legal certainty, in terms of predictability and substantive justice, arising from the courts’ approach to the reliability criteria and forensic psychology research. The thesis uses the legal analytical method combined with an empirical case study to achieve its aim. In Sweden, the courts are free to assess evidence, but the Supreme Court has established criteria to guide them in assessing the reliability of oral statements. The case analysis in this thesis reveals that the courts, to a large extent, apply the reliability criteria in cases of child rape. This approach can be criticized from a forensic psychology perspective, as several criteria lack support in research. Additionally, criticism arises from the fact that the criteria are designed for adults. The courts do not appear to fully consider the psychological challenges that children face in recalling and recounting their experiences. While applying the established criteria may introduce some predictability, it also poses a risk to the substantive justice if no consideration is given to the individual conditions of the interviewee. To ensure correct judgements, there is a need for increased forensic psychological knowledge among those assessing children’s oral statements, and the evaluation needs to be individualized to avoid disadvantaging children.