Jury System Absence And Professional Judges
Appeal Procedures in Finnish Criminal Cases with Case Law
In Finland, appeal procedures are governed primarily by the Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki 39/1889). Appeals ensure fair trial, correction of errors, and uniform application of the law. Finnish criminal appeals are hierarchical, moving from District Courts → Courts of Appeal → Supreme Court (KKO).
1. General Structure of Appeals
Appeal to the Court of Appeal (Hovioikeus)
Convicted persons, prosecutors, and sometimes victims can appeal.
Appeals can be on facts, evidence, or legal interpretation.
The Court of Appeal can reassess evidence and change verdict or sentence.
Appeal to the Supreme Court (KKO)
Only cases with significant legal questions or precedent value can go to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court mostly reviews points of law, not the factual assessment.
Time Limits:
Appeal to Court of Appeal: within 30 days of the District Court decision.
Appeal to Supreme Court: requires a leave to appeal, typically filed within 30 days of Court of Appeal decision.
2. Case 1: Appeal Against Conviction (Assault)
Court: Helsinki District Court → Court of Appeal
Facts: Defendant convicted of aggravated assault. Claimed evidence was insufficient.
Appeal: Argued that CCTV footage was unclear and witnesses were unreliable.
Court of Appeal Decision: Reviewed all evidence, re-interviewed witnesses, and re-analyzed forensic data. Confirmed conviction but reduced sentence from 18 months to 15 months due to mitigating circumstances.
Significance: Demonstrates full appellate review in the Court of Appeal, including both factual and legal reassessment.
3. Case 2: Appeal Against Pre-Trial Detention
Court: Supreme Court KKO 2017:62
Facts: A suspect detained for drug trafficking appealed, claiming detention was unnecessary.
Process: Supreme Court examined whether detention was proportional to the alleged offense, risk of flight, and strength of evidence.
Decision: Reduced detention period, allowed conditional release.
Significance: Highlights that appeals can address procedural and pre-trial issues, not just final verdicts.
4. Case 3: Appeal on Sentencing (Day-Fines)
Court: Court of Appeal → Supreme Court KKO 2014:22
Facts: Defendant convicted of tax fraud, initially sentenced to day-fines. Defendant argued the calculation did not consider income fluctuations.
Appeal: Court of Appeal adjusted the fine slightly; defendant appealed to Supreme Court on legal grounds of proportionality.
Decision: Supreme Court upheld adjusted fines, emphasizing day-fine system fairness and proportionality.
Significance: Shows appeals can refine sentencing methods and clarify legal interpretation of statutory provisions.
5. Case 4: Appeal on Evidence Admissibility (Mobile Phone Data)
Court: Supreme Court KKO 2019:73
Facts: Defendant convicted using mobile phone location data. Claimed evidence was obtained unlawfully.
Appeal: Focused on legality of surveillance and privacy rights.
Decision: Supreme Court confirmed evidence admissibility, noting police procedures were lawful and proportional.
Significance: Illustrates appeals protecting fundamental rights, ensuring evidence collection complies with law.
6. Case 5: Juvenile Appeal
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: A 16-year-old convicted of burglary in District Court. Claimed sentence was too harsh given age and circumstances.
Appeal: Court reviewed rehabilitation options, family situation, and prior record.
Decision: Sentencing converted into juvenile diversion program with counseling and restitution; formal conviction stayed minimal.
Significance: Shows appeals adjust outcomes for juveniles, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
7. Case 6: Appeal Against Acquittal
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: District Court acquitted a defendant for assault. Prosecutor appealed, claiming evidence was misinterpreted.
Appeal Process: Court of Appeal reviewed witness statements, forensic reports, and prior police testimony.
Decision: Conviction overturned; defendant sentenced to 12 months conditional imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates that prosecutors can appeal acquittals, unlike in some legal systems.
8. Case 7: Appeal Based on Procedural Errors
Court: Supreme Court KKO 2016:105
Facts: Defendant argued District Court erred by not allowing certain witnesses to testify.
Appeal: Supreme Court examined procedural rules on evidence admission.
Decision: Conviction partially annulled; case sent back for reconsideration in District Court.
Significance: Shows appeals can correct procedural mistakes, ensuring fair trial rights.
Key Features of Finnish Criminal Appeals
Dual Review System: Court of Appeal can review facts and law; Supreme Court focuses on legal issues.
Broad Grounds for Appeal: Include conviction, acquittal, sentencing, evidence admissibility, procedural errors, and pre-trial detention.
Time-Sensitive: Strict deadlines for filing appeals (usually 30 days).
Juvenile Considerations: Appeals may modify outcomes emphasizing rehabilitation.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Appeals safeguard privacy, proportionality, and procedural fairness.
Summary Table of Appeal Cases
| Case | Court | Issue | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assault Appeal | Court of Appeal | Conviction & evidence | Reduced sentence | Full factual & legal review |
| Drug Detention | Supreme Court | Pre-trial detention | Reduced detention | Procedural fairness & proportionality |
| Tax Fraud | Court of Appeal → Supreme Court | Sentencing | Adjusted day-fines | Proportionality & income-based fines |
| Mobile Data Evidence | Supreme Court | Admissibility | Upheld evidence | Protect fundamental rights |
| Juvenile Burglary | Court of Appeal | Sentence | Diversion program | Emphasize rehabilitation |
| Prosecutor Appeal Against Acquittal | Court of Appeal | Misinterpreted evidence | Conviction | Prosecutor can challenge acquittals |
| Procedural Error | Supreme Court | Witness exclusion | Case sent back | Correct procedural mistakes |
These cases illustrate how appeal procedures in Finland provide a comprehensive safeguard, covering conviction, sentencing, evidence, procedural errors, and juvenile considerations, with both factual and legal review at different levels of courts.
RELATED Blog
comments