Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Utevarohandläggning och bevisprövning i brottmål
Stockholm University, Faculty of Law, Department of Law.
1993 (Swedish)Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The thesis examines one specific and one general problem: First, an analysis of Chapter 46 section 15 of the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 46:15), an exceptional provision that - in minor cases - allows the judge to carry through the trial when the accused has refused to present himself at court. Second, an analysis of methods for evaluating evidence in criminal cases. The two issues are linked together by a hypothesis that the extent of the burden of proof is proportional to the amount of information considered necessary to achieve secure judgement in the actual case. When the defendant is absent, Swedish law - as consequence of the loss of a major source of information - permits a less extensive examination, »satisfactory», in court. Thereby two different standards - one for trials in the absence, another in the presence of the accused - are etablished. But also within these two standards there are different ranges of investigation, depending on how serious the crime is, the existence of a guilty-plea or not, the legal requirement for proof of criminal intent and upon the factual circumstances in the individual case. The conclusion of the analysis is that it is adequate to speak of a prosecutor’s burden of investigation beside the burden of proof. By using a burden of investigation as a quantity standard it is possible to accept »beyond reasonable doubt» as a quality standard in all criminal cases. As sequel of the conclusion, evaluation of evidence is recommended to be executed as a two-step procedure: First the judge defines to what extent it is »reasonable» to examine alternative hypotheses in favour of the accused. If such a hypothesis cannot be tested - because vital information is missing - the prosecutor has failed to fulfil his burden of investigation. If the hypothesis cannot be falsified he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Juristförl. , 1993. , p. 702
Keywords [sv]
Bevis (juridik), Bevisteori, Straffprocess, Sverige
National Category
Law
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-173807Libris ID: 7651029ISBN: 91-7598-577-2 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-173807DiVA, id: diva2:1356281
Public defence
1993-03-26, Hörsal 5, Hus B, Frescati, Stockholm, 10:00
Note

Med sammanfattning på engelska

Available from: 2019-10-01 Created: 2019-10-01 Last updated: 2019-10-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

PDF (Not accessible to users outside Sweden)
By organisation
Department of Law
Law

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 8 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf