Utevarohandläggning och bevisprövning i brottmål

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.Juridikbok.seCC-BY-NC 4.0