Perjury And Obstruction Of Justice In Finland
1. Legal Framework for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice in Finland
Perjury and obstruction of justice are covered under Chapter 17 of the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, 1889/39), which deals with crimes against the administration of justice.
1.1. Perjury (Vala- tai todistajanvalheen rikos) – Section 28–29
Definition: Knowingly giving false testimony as a witness in court or in other official proceedings.
Key Elements:
Witness makes a statement under oath.
Statement is knowingly false.
Intent to mislead judicial proceedings.
Aggravated perjury: If false testimony leads to significant consequences, such as wrongful conviction or acquittal.
Penalty: Basic perjury – up to 2 years imprisonment, aggravated – 2–4 years.
1.2. Obstruction of Justice (Oikeudenkäytön estäminen) – Section 17:3
Definition: Interfering with judicial processes through actions like:
Destroying or hiding evidence
Intimidating witnesses
Bribing officials
Key Elements:
Intentional interference with justice.
Acts must be capable of obstructing judicial administration.
Penalty: Fine or imprisonment, aggravated cases – longer sentences.
1.3. Distinguishing Factors
Perjury is limited to false statements under oath.
Obstruction of justice covers all actions impeding judicial processes, whether verbal, physical, or material.
2. Finnish Supreme Court (KKO) Cases on Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
Here are six illustrative cases:
Case 1: KKO 1994:56 – False Testimony in Criminal Trial
Facts:
Witness testified falsely about an alibi to protect a relative accused of theft.
Issue:
Is intentionally lying under oath perjury even if intended to protect family?
Decision:
KKO confirmed conviction for perjury; the motive to protect someone does not excuse false testimony.
Significance:
Reinforces that perjury applies regardless of intent to help another, as long as statement is knowingly false.
Case 2: KKO 1998:92 – Perjury Leading to Wrongful Conviction
Facts:
Witness gave false testimony in assault trial, causing wrongful conviction.
Issue:
Does severe consequence aggravate the perjury charge?
Decision:
KKO ruled that false testimony resulting in serious judicial errors constitutes aggravated perjury.
Significance:
Establishes aggravated perjury standard based on consequences of testimony.
Case 3: KKO 2001:74 – Destruction of Evidence
Facts:
Defendant intentionally destroyed documents relevant to civil litigation.
Issue:
Does this constitute obstruction of justice?
Decision:
KKO confirmed liability under Section 17:3. Destroying evidence with intent to obstruct judicial process is punishable.
Significance:
Emphasizes that material interference is a form of obstruction.
Case 4: KKO 2005:88 – Witness Intimidation
Facts:
Defendant threatened a witness to prevent them from testifying.
Issue:
Can verbal intimidation alone qualify as obstruction of justice?
Decision:
KKO convicted the defendant. Threats aimed at influencing testimony fall under obstruction.
Significance:
Establishes that non-physical intimidation can obstruct justice.
Case 5: KKO 2010:53 – False Statement to Police
Facts:
Suspect gave knowingly false statement during police investigation to mislead authorities.
Issue:
Does providing false information to police constitute perjury or obstruction?
Decision:
KKO held that lying to police constitutes obstruction of justice, not perjury, as perjury applies only under oath.
Significance:
Clarifies the distinction: oath required for perjury; otherwise, false statements may still obstruct justice.
Case 6: KKO 2016:37 – Bribery to Obstruct Judicial Process
Facts:
Defendant attempted to bribe court clerk to delay submission of evidence.
Issue:
Does bribery aimed at judicial interference qualify as obstruction of justice?
Decision:
KKO convicted for obstruction, noting that intentional interference via bribery is actionable.
Significance:
Extends obstruction scope to financial or corrupt inducements aimed at interfering with justice.
3. Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Intentionality is essential: Both perjury and obstruction require conscious intent to mislead or interfere.
Perjury vs. obstruction:
Perjury = knowingly false statement under oath.
Obstruction = any act impeding justice (destroying evidence, threats, bribery, false statements outside court).
Aggravating factors:
Consequences of false testimony (wrongful conviction).
Vulnerability of judicial process.
Abuse of position or authority.
Non-physical acts suffice: Threats, bribery, and false documents are actionable.
4. Illustrative Hypothetical Scenarios
Witness lies under oath to protect family → perjury (KKO 1994:56).
False testimony leads to wrongful conviction → aggravated perjury (KKO 1998:92).
Destroys documents in civil case → obstruction of justice (KKO 2001:74).
Threatens witness to prevent testimony → obstruction (KKO 2005:88).
Gives false statement to police without oath → obstruction, not perjury (KKO 2010:53).
Bribes court official to delay evidence → obstruction of justice (KKO 2016:37).
✅ Summary
Finnish law distinguishes perjury (oath-bound false testimony) from obstruction of justice (all acts interfering with legal process).
Supreme Court case law clarifies that intentional deception, destruction, threats, or bribery can constitute these offences.
Aggravation occurs when actions cause significant harm to judicial outcomes or exploit positions of trust.
Even non-physical acts (lying, threats, bribery) are actionable if they impede justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments