brottmotstånd

brottmotstånd is a concept within Swedish criminal law that refers to the act of opposing or trying to prevent another person from committing a crime. The term literally translates to “crime resistance” and is distinct from self‑defence, which is aimed at protecting oneself from harm. While both situations involve an intervening action, brottmotstånd is defensive in nature and the defendant must be placing themselves in danger or confronting a perpetrator to stop the crime in progress or imminent.

The legal basis for brottmotstånd is found in the Swedish Penal Code (Brottsordning). Section 4 § 2 specifically addresses the right and circumstances under which a person may resist a crime. An individual may act in brottmotstånd if the criminal act is imminent or already in force, and the interference is proportionate to the threat. The law recognises that such actions may involve aggressive conduct or even violence against the offender. Because of this, the act is usually prosecuted as a separate offence, and the threshold for legal exoneration is high: the protagonist has to successfully show that the interference was necessary and that no other alternative, less drastic, measures were available.

In practice, typical examples include a citizen intervening to stop a robbery, physically restraining a stranger taking a shop assistant's purse, or confronting a driver who is about to commit a hit‑and‑run. Non‑violent tactics such as shouting or forming a crowd can also qualify as brottmotstånd when they effectively deter the criminal. The courts assess each case on its merits, balancing deterrence of crime, the protection of civil order, and the rights of individuals to resist wrongdoing.

Despite its legal recognition, brottmotstånd remains a contentious area. Critics argue that it encourages vigilantism and can lead to escalating violence; supporters maintain it provides a mechanism for ordinary citizens to safeguard public safety. Any person asserting brottmotstånd must be prepared to justify their actions in court, as the burden of proof typically lies with the accused to establish both the necessity of their intervention and the proportionality of the force used.