unsaveSave
expand-left
full screen Mårten Schultz, professor of civil law at Stockholm University. Archive image. Photo: Malin Hoelstad / Svd / TT
The man’s severe abuse of his partner contributed to her death, and therefore he must be convicted of murder. The Supreme Court’s guiding judgment on how causation should be assessed may affect similar cases in the future.
– It is very gratifying that HD is putting its foot down, says Professor Mårten Schultz.
The Supreme Court (HD) rules that the man murdered the roommate in Hudiksvall in the summer of 2022, because it is clear that the assault contributed to the death – although drug poisoning may also have had an effect.
– In order for someone to be convicted of murder, a causal connection between the act and the death is required. There have previously been ambiguities in the lower courts about what that means, what is required for someone to be considered to have caused a death?, says Mårten Schultz, professor of civil law who specializes in causation issues in law.
Above all, there have been uncertainties in situations like the beating to death in Hudiksvall, where several possible factors may have influenced the death.
Acquitted of murder
The Court of Appeal acquitted the man of murder as it was beyond reasonable doubt that the assault was the cause of death, as high levels of antidepressant medication were also found in her body. That conclusion is now rejected by the Supreme Court, which sentences the man to life imprisonment for murder.
– It is enough that the assault has contributed to the death for it to be considered to have caused the death, and it does not have to be the most important cause, says Mårten Schultz about what HD states.
He has seen several other examples where people have previously been acquitted with similar, according to Schultz’s strange motivations, and believes that HD’s guidance will lead to better sentences in the future.
– And it is possible that it could mean that some who would have been acquitted in the past will be sentenced, but I don’t foresee any tidal wave of convictions as a consequence of this.
Don’t leave it to the experts
Another thing he welcomes is that HD makes it clear in the judgment that courts must never leave it to other experts, for example in forensic medicine, to assess whether there is a causal relationship or not.
– They have a super fine wording: “responsibility for the assessment of whether there is a legally relevant causal connection always lies with the court”, he says and continues:
– So the doctors can say what they want, but then there must always be a legal evaluation if there is a causal relationship.
FACTS Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the last instance of the general courts and has the main task of creating precedents, guiding rulings, mainly in the area of criminal law and civil law.
The Supreme Court hears appeals from judgments and decisions from the Courts of Appeal, the Land and Environmental Court of Appeal and the Patent and Market Court of Appeal.
In order for a case to be brought up, permission to appeal is required. It is mainly given when the case may have significance for how other courts will rule in similar cases.
The case can also be tried if there are special reasons for it, such as that there was a gross error in the handling of the case in the Court of Appeal, which affected the outcome, or that the wrong law was applied.
Source: Supreme Court
Read more