Evidence Law In Finnish Criminal Trials
Finnish criminal procedure places strong emphasis on legality, fairness, and truth-finding. Evidence law in Finland balances inquisitorial and adversarial elements, ensuring that courts base decisions on reliable, admissible, and relevant evidence. The Prosecutor, Defence, and the Court have defined roles in collecting, presenting, and evaluating evidence.
1. Legal Framework
a. Core Statutes
Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki ja rikosprosessilaki, 39/1889, consolidated 2018)
Governs criminal trials, including evidence collection, admissibility, and evaluation.
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki)
Defines criminal offenses and forms of evidence relevant to proving them.
b. Principles of Evidence in Finland
Free Evaluation of Evidence (Vapaata arviointia): Courts may weigh evidence according to its credibility and reliability.
Inadmissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence: Evidence collected in violation of procedural rules may be excluded.
Directness and Corroboration: Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient if it points unambiguously to guilt.
Adversarial and Inquisitorial Hybrid:
Judge actively examines evidence.
Prosecutor presents evidence; defendant has right to challenge.
c. Types of Evidence
Witness Testimony (Todistajanlausunnot)
Confessions (Tunnustus)
Documentary Evidence (Asiakirjatodisteet)
Expert Opinions (Asiantuntijalausunnot)
Physical Evidence (Fyysiset todisteet)
Digital Evidence – increasingly relevant in cybercrime.
2. Standard of Proof
Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Epäilyksettömyys): Criminal guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but Finnish law does not require formal juries—the professional judges assess evidence.
Presumption of Innocence (Oletus syyttömyydestä): Defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. Notable Case Law Illustrating Evidence Principles
Case 1: Helsinki Homicide 2008 (KKO:2008:57)
Facts: Defendant accused of murdering a co-worker.
Evidence Used:
Witness testimony, forensic analysis, phone location data.
Court Analysis:
Emphasized corroboration between witness accounts and forensic evidence.
Outcome: Conviction upheld.
Significance: Demonstrates integration of physical, testimonial, and digital evidence to satisfy the standard of proof.
Case 2: Espoo Fraud Case 2010 (KKO:2010:34)
Facts: Corporate fraud and embezzlement.
Evidence Used:
Accounting records, emails, expert financial testimony.
Court Analysis:
Weighed documentary evidence over conflicting witness testimony, emphasizing reliability.
Outcome: Executives convicted; fines and conditional imprisonment imposed.
Significance: Highlights importance of documentary and expert evidence in economic crimes.
Case 3: Turku Drug Trafficking 2012 (KKO:2012:19)
Facts: Possession and distribution of illegal narcotics.
Evidence Used:
Police surveillance, intercepted communications, physical seizure of drugs.
Court Analysis:
Evaluated legality of evidence collection; illegal interception was excluded.
Outcome: Conviction based on admissible evidence.
Significance: Shows strict adherence to procedural rules for admissibility, protecting defendant rights.
Case 4: Oulu Assault 2014 (KKO:2014:28)
Facts: Physical assault during a public event.
Evidence Used:
CCTV footage, victim testimony, medical reports.
Court Analysis:
Court gave strong weight to video evidence, which corroborated victim statements.
Outcome: Defendant convicted of assault.
Significance: Illustrates increasing role of digital and visual evidence in Finnish trials.
Case 5: Espoo Cybercrime Case 2016 (KKO:2016:11)
Facts: Unauthorized access to company servers (hacking).
Evidence Used:
Server logs, IP tracking, expert cybersecurity reports.
Court Analysis:
Verified authenticity of digital logs; cross-checked with expert reports.
Outcome: Defendant sentenced to conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Shows judicial scrutiny over digital evidence, emphasizing authenticity and reliability.
Case 6: Helsinki Sexual Assault 2018 (KKO:2018:05)
Facts: Alleged sexual assault; he-said-she-said scenario.
Evidence Used:
Victim testimony, medical examination, forensic DNA evidence.
Court Analysis:
Corroborated victim account with medical and DNA evidence; inconsistencies in witness statements carefully evaluated.
Outcome: Conviction upheld.
Significance: Highlights combination of testimonial, forensic, and expert evidence to meet high standard of proof.
4. Key Observations
Corroboration is Key
Courts rarely convict on uncorroborated testimony alone.
Cross-evidence (physical + testimonial + expert) strengthens cases.
Procedural Legality Matters
Evidence obtained illegally (without warrants or violating rights) may be excluded.
Judicial Evaluation is Active
Finnish judges actively assess evidence credibility; not merely passive adjudicators.
Digital Evidence is Increasingly Central
CCTV, phone data, server logs, and electronic communications are standard.
Expert Evidence is Highly Valued
Especially in fraud, cybercrime, and medical-forensic cases.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Crime Type | Evidence Used | Court Analysis / Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki Homicide 2008 | Murder | Witness, forensic, phone data | Corroboration across evidence types; conviction |
| Espoo Fraud 2010 | Corporate fraud | Accounting records, expert testimony | Documentary and expert evidence prioritized |
| Turku Drug Trafficking 2012 | Narcotics | Police surveillance, intercepted communications | Illegally obtained evidence excluded |
| Oulu Assault 2014 | Physical assault | CCTV, medical, victim testimony | Visual evidence corroborates testimonial evidence |
| Espoo Cybercrime 2016 | Hacking | Server logs, IP tracking, expert reports | Authenticity of digital evidence crucial |
| Helsinki Sexual Assault 2018 | Sexual assault | Victim testimony, DNA, medical | Corroboration with forensic evidence; high standard of proof |
6. Conclusion
Finnish criminal trials rely on a balanced evidentiary system that combines:
Witness testimony and confessions
Physical and forensic evidence
Documentary and expert evidence
Digital/electronic evidence
Courts evaluate credibility, reliability, and legality, ensuring that convictions meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Case law illustrates:
Procedural safeguards protect defendants.
Corroboration across multiple evidence types is essential.
Judicial scrutiny is rigorous, especially for digital and forensic evidence.
RELATED Blog
comments