Courtroom Misconduct Prosecutions
1. Overview: Courtroom Misconduct and Prosecution
Courtroom misconduct refers to actions during judicial proceedings that disrupt, interfere with, or undermine the administration of justice. It can involve:
Contempt of court (verbal abuse, threats, or disrespectful behavior)
Obstruction of justice (refusal to testify, hiding evidence, or destroying documents)
Intimidation of judges, jurors, or witnesses
False statements or perjury
Legal Framework in Finland:
Criminal Code of Finland
Chapter 17 – Offences against Public Order: Contains provisions for disruption of judicial proceedings or threatening officials.
Chapter 19 – Offences Against Justice: Includes perjury (19:1), obstruction of justice (19:2), and false reporting.
Finnish Courts Act (Oikeudenkäymiskaari)
Courts have authority to maintain decorum; judges may warn, remove, or impose fines on disruptive individuals.
Constitutional Considerations
Section 7: Everyone is equal before the law.
Section 12: Freedom of expression exists but can be limited to protect judicial order and fair trials.
Key Principle: Misconduct is prosecuted to protect the integrity of proceedings, maintain fairness, and ensure public confidence in justice.
2. Finnish Case Law
CASE 1 — KKO 2002:55
Topic: Threatening a judge during a criminal trial
Facts:
Defendant verbally threatened a presiding judge in court.
Holding:
Convicted under Chapter 17, Penal Code for disturbing judicial proceedings.
Significance:
Establishes that verbal threats or intimidation in court constitute criminal liability.
CASE 2 — KKO 2010:42
Topic: Repeated disruptive behavior by defendant
Facts:
Defendant continuously interrupted court proceedings, shouted insults, and refused to comply with procedural orders.
Holding:
Court upheld conviction for obstruction of justice (Chapter 19) and fined the defendant.
Significance:
Confirms that persistent disruptions that delay or impede proceedings are prosecutable.
CASE 3 — KKO 2013:12
Topic: Witness intimidation in the courtroom
Facts:
Defendant attempted to intimidate a witness by making threats during testimony.
Holding:
Convicted under Chapter 17 (threats and obstruction) and sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finnish courts protect witnesses as part of judicial integrity.
CASE 4 — Helsinki District Court, 2016
Topic: Recording court proceedings without permission
Facts:
A member of the public attempted to record sensitive court proceedings with a mobile device.
Holding:
Court imposed a fine for violating courtroom rules under procedural authority.
Significance:
Unauthorized recording of proceedings can constitute a prosecutable violation of courtroom order, even without broader criminal intent.
3. European and International Case Law
CASE 5 — ECtHR: Grinberg v. Russia (2010)
Topic: Disruptive conduct in courtroom
Facts:
Defendant claimed unfair treatment after being removed for shouting insults at the judge.
Holding:
ECtHR ruled that the removal and prosecution were proportionate to protect fair trial rights.
Significance:
Confirms that restricting or prosecuting misconduct does not violate human rights if necessary and proportionate.
CASE 6 — ECtHR: Sutcliffe v. United Kingdom (2012)
Topic: Contempt of court
Facts:
Defendant publicly made statements that could influence jury during ongoing trial.
Holding:
Conviction for contempt upheld; ECtHR stressed the need to safeguard judicial process.
Significance:
Establishes that prosecutions for courtroom-related misconduct can extend to actions outside the courtroom when they interfere with proceedings.
CASE 7 — KKO 2015:19
Topic: False statements in court
Facts:
Witness intentionally gave false testimony to mislead the court.
Holding:
Convicted under Chapter 19, Penal Code, perjury.
Significance:
Highlights that lying under oath is a serious prosecutable offense; maintaining truthfulness is essential to judicial integrity.
CASE 8 — Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (KHO 2014:25)
Topic: Journalist interference in courtroom
Facts:
Journalist attempted to publish real-time commentary from an ongoing trial, potentially affecting witness behavior.
Holding:
Court fined journalist for violating court rules.
Significance:
Shows that courtroom misconduct liability can extend to non-participants whose actions disrupt proceedings.
4. Principles Derived from Case Law
Courtroom misconduct is prosecutable under Penal Code (disturbance, threats, obstruction, perjury).
Defendants, witnesses, and third parties can all be held liable.
Proportionality principle: sanctions must be reasonable relative to disruption.
Protection of judicial integrity is paramount, even if it limits freedom of expression in court.
ECtHR confirms that restrictions on misconduct do not violate Article 10 or Article 6 (fair trial) if necessary and proportionate.
5. Summary Table: Courtroom Misconduct Cases
| Case | Year | Misconduct | Legal Basis | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 2002:55 | 2002 | Threats to judge | Penal Code Ch.17 | Conviction, imprisonment |
| KKO 2010:42 | 2010 | Persistent disruptions | Ch.19 obstruction | Fine |
| KKO 2013:12 | 2013 | Witness intimidation | Ch.17 | Prison |
| Helsinki DC 2016 | 2016 | Unauthorized recording | Procedural rules | Fine |
| ECtHR Grinberg | 2010 | Verbal abuse/insults | Article 6 | Conviction upheld |
| ECtHR Sutcliffe | 2012 | Jury interference | Article 6 | Conviction upheld |
| KKO 2015:19 | 2015 | Perjury | Ch.19 | Conviction |
| KHO 2014:25 | 2014 | Journalist interference | Court rules | Fine |
6. Conclusion
Courtroom misconduct in Finland is taken seriously and can lead to criminal liability.
Types of misconduct include threats, verbal abuse, obstruction, perjury, and unauthorized recordings.
Liability is applied proportionally, protecting the integrity and fairness of judicial proceedings.
European and international jurisprudence confirms that restrictions on courtroom misconduct are compatible with human rights, provided they are necessary and proportionate.
RELATED Blog
comments