ABSTRACT

Swedish law makes a distinction between justificatory and excusatory defences and the two types of defence form important components of the structure of an offence. The assessment of defensibility may be affected at least as regards the section on necessity. The law concerning excess as an excuse must viewed as a norm complementing primary rules concerning justification. The law on justificatory defences only concerns situations of 'real' states of danger and attacks. There are no corresponding statutory rules if a state of self-defence or necessity is imagined. In common with self-defence, necessity is a justificatory defence under Swedish law. The Swedish Supreme Court has recently quashed this kind of interpretation of the Swedish statute, potentially rejecting voluntary intoxication as a defence. Insanity, insane and automatism. is not a valid defence under Swedish law. Swedish law does acknowledge mistake of law as a completely excusing circumstance in some rather extraordinary situations.