Lagföring utan domstolsprövning - En granskning av strafföreläggandet ur ett rättssäkerhets- och likabehandlingsperspektiv

Sammanfattning: In 1926 a commission report about a new code of judicial procedure was completed. The commission suggested the introduction of a summary procedure for misconducts that did not need to be resolved by the court. The main reason for this procedure was that it would unburden the courts from a heavy workload. Fast forward to today, the summary procedure, penal order, is regulated in chapter 48 of the code of judicial procedure (rättegångsbalken). The penal order enables the prosecutor to issue a criminal sanction for a crime committed. The suspect of the crime pleads guilty to the crime, either by signing the order or by simply paying the fine. When a penal order is issued and subsequently accepted, the penal order will be a part of the perpetrator’s criminal record. The thesis explains a number of important principles for Swedish criminal procedure. Two of them form the theory of the thesis. The two principles are the foundation for the analysis in the end of the essay. In this essay, the procedural rules of the penal order, statistics and the sanctions are examined. The results show that the number of penal orders issued have dropped substantially since 1975. The public prosecution authority has evaluated the sanctions of the penal order twice. The results of the reports show that the foundations for determining the amount of the fines are often insufficient. It also happens that the sanctions issued are lower than they should be for they to be in accordance to common practice. An examination of issued corporate fines in penal orders show that 24% of the fines are lower than what the recommendations say. In the analysis, some risks linked to the procedure are noted, i.g. misunderstandings because of lack of information. Lastly, some suggestions to improve the procedure are made. They are primarily about the information that is given to the suspect when a penal order is issued. That information can be clearer. Furthermore, the right to have the case tried in court should be emphasized. To people who do not understand Swedish, or because of reasons other than that cannot process the information, an alternative source of information is suggested. Another suggestion made is about expressing the standard of proof needed to issue a penal order more clearly in the law. A few other ideas to improve the procedure are discussed.