Relationship Between Criminal Law And Constitutional Rights In Finland
1. Legal Framework
Constitution of Finland (Suomen perustuslaki 731/1999)
Key provisions that intersect with criminal law:
Section 7 – Equality before the law
All individuals are equal and protected under the law; criminal law must be applied without discrimination.
Section 8 – Right to life and personal integrity
Criminal law protects life, bodily integrity, and personal liberty.
Section 10 – Right to personal liberty and security
Arrest, detention, and imprisonment must follow the law; arbitrary detention is prohibited.
Section 21 – Right to a fair trial
Guarantees judicial independence, right to defense, and fair procedures in criminal cases.
Section 22 – Protection of privacy
Limits criminal investigations and police powers to what is proportionate and lawful.
2. Interplay Between Criminal Law and Constitutional Rights
Criminal law provides rules defining offenses, punishments, and procedural safeguards.
Constitutional rights provide the framework ensuring that criminal law is applied fairly, proportionally, and without violating fundamental freedoms.
Key principles:
Legality (nullum crimen sine lege)
No one can be punished without a clearly defined offense in law.
Proportionality of punishment
Criminal sanctions must respect individual rights.
Protection against arbitrary detention
Criminal investigations, searches, and imprisonment must respect Sections 10 and 21.
Right to defense
Ensures fair trial and equality before the law.
Privacy protection
Limits intrusive investigations and surveillance.
3. Case Law Illustrating Criminal Law and Constitutional Rights
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland 2003: KKO 2003:65 – Unlawful Arrest
Facts:
Defendant was detained for 48 hours without formal charges.
Claimed violation of constitutional right to personal liberty (Section 10).
Legal Principles:
Arrest must follow Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure.
Arbitrary detention violates Section 10.
Outcome:
Court ruled detention partially unlawful.
Evidence obtained during unlawful detention was inadmissible.
Significance:
Affirms constitutional protection against arbitrary detention in criminal law.
Case 2: Court of Appeal of Helsinki 2007: R 07/19 – Right to Fair Trial
Facts:
Defendant argued that the district court delayed providing access to legal counsel, violating Section 21 of the Constitution.
Legal Principles:
Right to legal assistance is a constitutional right.
Any violation can invalidate parts of proceedings.
Outcome:
Court allowed appeal on limited grounds.
Certain evidence excluded, trial restarted.
Significance:
Ensures criminal proceedings comply with constitutional rights.
Case 3: Supreme Court of Finland 2010: KKO 2010:32 – Search and Privacy
Facts:
Police conducted a home search without a warrant.
Defendant claimed Section 22 (privacy) violation.
Legal Principles:
Criminal investigations must respect privacy.
Warrantless searches are only allowed in narrowly defined emergency situations.
Outcome:
Evidence obtained during illegal search was excluded.
Significance:
Constitutional right to privacy constrains investigative powers under criminal law.
Case 4: District Court of Tampere 2014: R 14/45 – Proportionality of Punishment
Facts:
Defendant convicted of petty theft.
Original sentence included long-term imprisonment.
Claimed punishment violated Section 7 (equality) and proportionality principle.
Legal Principles:
Punishment must be proportionate to the offense.
Courts must interpret criminal law in light of constitutional rights.
Outcome:
Sentence reduced to a fine and probation.
Significance:
Constitutional principles guide sentencing within criminal law.
Case 5: Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland 2016: R 16/33 – Freedom of Expression vs Criminal Defamation
Facts:
Defendant published critical online content about a public figure.
Charged with criminal defamation.
Legal Principles:
Section 12 (freedom of expression) vs criminal law restrictions.
Courts balance constitutional rights with protection against harm.
Outcome:
Minor defamation conviction, limited fine.
Emphasis on proportional interference with free speech.
Significance:
Shows criminal law must respect constitutional freedoms while protecting others.
Case 6: Supreme Court of Finland 2018: KKO 2018:44 – Protection Against Double Jeopardy
Facts:
Defendant tried for same criminal act twice in different district courts.
Claimed violation of Section 8 and criminal law principle of ne bis in idem.
Legal Principles:
Criminal law cannot punish twice for same act.
Constitutional guarantee protects against double jeopardy.
Outcome:
Second trial dismissed.
Significance:
Reinforces constitutional rights limiting criminal prosecutions.
Case 7: District Court of Helsinki 2020: R 20/12 – Electronic Surveillance
Facts:
Police monitored defendant’s internet activity without court authorization.
Defendant claimed violation of Sections 10 and 22.
Legal Principles:
Surveillance requires legal authorization; constitutional rights protect private communication.
Outcome:
Evidence excluded; surveillance ruled unconstitutional.
Significance:
Ensures criminal law procedures comply with constitutional guarantees in digital age.
4. Key Takeaways
Constitutional rights guide criminal law
They limit police powers, protect fairness, and shape sentencing.
Fair trial is central
Legal counsel, equality, and timely procedures are constitutionally guaranteed.
Privacy and proportionality
Investigations and punishments must be proportionate and respect privacy.
Double jeopardy and legal certainty
Individuals cannot face repeated prosecution for the same offense.
Balancing rights and public interest
Courts weigh freedom of expression, privacy, and liberty against societal protection.
RELATED Blog
comments