In recent times, a debate is raging about their ”image”. It all started when the state prosecutor went on to attack the lawyers, which is promoted with the whisky glass in his hands, and said to romanticize fully independent churches, is a critique that we in many ways can agree with.
on The 5th of november, complaining of the 38 prosecutors in the DN Debate on the ”isolated and unsubstantiated claims of error or misconduct, in the practice of the profession,” which ”affects the work environment, for us, the professionals who appear in a court of law.” The critique of these, 38 of the prosecutor's waterproof, and it highlights the place of one of the largest rättsäkerhetsproblem.
. As a general rule, the conduct of pre-trial investigations and to prosecute at their own discretion, not the courts or the defense attorneys have no opportunity to intervene. With All of this power has been given to the public prosecutor, in exchange for an obligation to be objective. The law is clear: An investigation must be conducted objectively. At the pre-trial investigation shall be undersökningsledaren to take care of and take into account the facts and evidence, which speaks both to his advantage and to his disadvantage. The pre-trial investigation shall be conducted in such a way that no unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or to be caused any expense or inconvenience.
We are going to continue to complain about, for our clients, and for fairness ' sake.
the List is on the prosecutor, knowingly or unknowingly, in violation of these rules seem to be nearly as long as you like. Here are just a few examples of the recurrence of errors.
Searches are carried out in unnecessary forms , for example, on the day prior to the general meeting of shareholders – apparently in order to bring about as much attention as possible. < / p>
the Suspects, arrested and brought by force to the hearing. , despite the fact that they have been able to call them by e-mail. < / p>
In the run-up to the major and drew attention to the objectives of the rules, the prosecutors are often categorical in the question of guilt in the media , and is the cause of it, the way those suspected of the direct damage, even if it subsequently becomes apparent that the accused individual is innocent. < / p>
a criminal investigation is going on for far too long. , in some cases, for decades), which leads to irreversible damage. < / p>
Prosecutors often suffer from tunnel vision. , which means that they systematically filter the evidence that speaks to the suspects ' advantage, and, instead, collect the things on high, which speaks to their advantage, then to bring a prosecution, which, from the very beginning to realize is going to fail. This tunnelseendesyndrom runs like a red thread through the last decade's biggest failures, from the åklagarhåll: Trustor, Prosolvia, Playa, APPLICATION, Credit, and, last but not least the total failure in the case of Thomas Quick.
No, of course not!!! We are required by law to be, with diligence and care in protecting our clients ' best interests.
the Problem is that, in practice, we are powerless. It is, in fact, is not an effective way to stop the prosecutor that is violating his objektivitetsplikt.
there are high demands on both the defence, the prosecutors, and that these groups are subject to an effective disciplinary system should not be controversial, or regarded as problems of health and safety, given their key position, for a well-functioning legal and judicial systems. We are the defenders could be seen, and in the worst case, exclusion from the association if we do not do something that may be wrong. We have to get our expense reports bargained, we may become personally liable for the costs of the proceedings, and we may be dispossessed of the mission of the public defender.
They can't be seen or ruled out. A prosecutor, unlike a supporter, not a personal liability for payment of the costs of the proceedings, and the prosecutor could not by the court to be relieved of his duties as a public prosecutor in a given case.
In practice, therefore, the public prosecutor, flaunting his objektivitetsplikt, and at a pre-trial investigation, for years, without the risk of any disciplinary action.
the public prosecutor may only bring a case if he or she has objective grounds can expect a conviction. This is the basic rule to ensure that prosecutors did not turn a blind eye to reality, and to prosecute, in vain. As a rule, that is, on paper, sounds good, is only as good as how it is in practice. It is our firm belief that prosecutors often prosecute despite the fact that, from the very beginning, it is clear that the acquittals to the court.
While you can make a complaint to the JO, which is, in the best of cases, lead to criticism, be pronounced long in retrospect, but, WELL, almost never, in the course of proceedings. You can make a complaint to the police about the misconduct, but the bar is high, and does not help the person who is being prosecuted and he or she should not have been there. You can also appeal the decision to the public prosecutor by the director, and the request for the so-called review of the decision. Unfortunately, our overall experience of this institute is very sad. Basically, none of us has a parent, the public prosecutor has changed to a decision for his benefit.
even the courts have no ability to act against a prosecutor that is determined to be continuous, long there and then bring the utsiktslösa charges. The law is toothless.
this forced the innocent people to suffer through the seemingly interminable pre-trial investigations, and the length of trials is to be found not guilty, but still be forced to conclude that they have had their lives destroyed due to the fault or negligence in the practice of the profession.
It is true rättssäkerhetsproblemet is that it's not going to come to a deal with the prosecutors who run amok.
The self-perceived deficiencies in the work environment is likely to make recommendations in relation to the lives of innocent people who are being hurt or destroyed, but that they will have access to an effective remedy, and the prosecutor should be aware of the suspect, as required by law, instead of feeling sorry for themselves.
It is high time that the law be amended so that the court and the defence counsel is given an effective legal way to put an end to a prosecutor commits negligent acts or omissions in the course of their duties, and it is high time that the prosecutors have imposed a personal responsibility on the part of the pre-trial investigation is handled in the right way. Only then will people come to grips with the central rättssäkerhetsproblem. In the meantime, we shall continue to lament, for our clients, and for fairness's sake!<