Resning i brottmål till förmån för den tilltalade - En komparativ analys
Sammanfattning: This thesis explores how criminal cases can, in the light of new evidence, be reviewed in benefit of convicted defendants in both Sweden and Norway. The purpose is to describe the functionality of reviews in both countries, to compare the two and to analyze what Sweden can learn from the differences presented in Norway. In a prominent case last year in Sweden, a person was granted review after his third try and was later acquitted of all charges for which he had spent 13 years in prison. Does this case indicate that the review function in Sweden works or not? It is of course impossible to say based on only one case. In Sweden, the review regulation lies on the fundamental yet opposite principles of a sentences’ immovability and truth. A first prerequisite for review to be relevant is that the primary sentence has won legal force. Criticism has been raised towards the rules of review and some voices have expressed that the system should be reformed. After a few legal scandals och intense critique the Norwegian review system was reformed in 2004. Norway established an independent commission that investigates, tries and in due cases grants a new trial. Aside from the commission, there are also a few other differences compared to the Swedish system. The conclusion of the thesis is that there are several flaws in the Swedish review system and that we should be inspired by and learn from Norway. Parts of the Swedish rules can be questioned for a lack of independence and it is for reasons of legal security important to reform the Swedish review system.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)