Use Of Video Testimony In Finnish Trials
1. Legal Framework in Finland
In Finland, video testimony (videotodistelu / video witness testimony) is governed by the Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki, Laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa):
Section 17a (Criminal Procedure Act) allows witnesses, especially vulnerable ones (children, victims of sexual offenses, or witnesses at risk), to give testimony via video link instead of appearing in court.
Purpose: Protect witnesses from intimidation, reduce trauma, and ensure accurate testimony.
Requirements:
The witness must consent.
The court ensures that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is not violated (confrontation principle).
Video testimony must allow cross-examination by defense and prosecution.
Key principles:
Protect vulnerable witnesses while maintaining the rights of the defense.
Maintain accuracy and reliability of evidence.
Use in criminal and family law proceedings when necessary.
2. Leading Finnish Cases on Video Testimony
Case 1: KKO 2002:89 — Child Witness in Sexual Abuse Case
Facts: A 7-year-old child accused a family member of sexual abuse. The court allowed the child to testify via video link to avoid psychological trauma.
Issue: Whether video testimony could replace live testimony without violating the accused’s right to confront the witness.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the video testimony. The defense could ask questions via an intermediary, and the court ensured fairness.
Principle: Video testimony is permissible for vulnerable witnesses if safeguards maintain cross-examination and fairness.
Case 2: KKO 2005:42 — Video Testimony of a Victim in Domestic Violence
Facts: A victim of domestic violence feared retaliation and requested to testify via video.
Issue: Whether the testimony could be admitted despite concerns about the defendant’s right to see the witness.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed video testimony, noting that the victim’s safety and willingness to testify were paramount. The defense could still pose questions indirectly.
Principle: Safety and willingness of witnesses can justify video testimony if the court preserves defendant’s rights.
Case 3: KKO 2008:55 — Multiple Video Witnesses in a Fraud Case
Facts: Witnesses in different cities could not attend court due to distance and employment constraints. Video testimony was proposed.
Issue: Whether logistical convenience could justify using video testimony.
Decision: The court accepted video testimony because it was practical, did not compromise fairness, and allowed the defense to cross-examine.
Principle: Video testimony can also be used for practical reasons, not just witness vulnerability, as long as the trial remains fair.
Case 4: KKO 2012:67 — Witness Testimony from Abroad
Facts: A key witness lived abroad and could not appear in Finnish court. Video testimony was requested.
Issue: Whether foreign witnesses could provide testimony via video link.
Decision: The Supreme Court approved the use of video testimony, with measures to allow real-time questioning by defense and prosecution.
Principle: Video testimony is internationally applicable, ensuring access to witnesses abroad while maintaining trial fairness.
Case 5: KKO 2015:29 — Child Witness in Homicide Case
Facts: A child witnessed a violent crime. Direct testimony in court could have caused severe trauma.
Issue: Whether testimony via video recording satisfied the legal requirements for reliability and confrontation.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the video testimony. Court-appointed intermediaries ensured the child could be questioned in a developmentally appropriate manner.
Principle: Courts prioritize child welfare while ensuring defendant’s right to question witnesses is upheld.
Case 6: KKO 2018:44 — Video Testimony for Victims with Disabilities
Facts: A witness with severe mobility impairment was unable to attend court.
Issue: Whether the video testimony could be admitted under equality and fairness principles.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed testimony via video, emphasizing accessibility for people with disabilities while ensuring cross-examination.
Principle: Video testimony can accommodate physical or psychological limitations, balancing witness accessibility and trial fairness.
Case 7: KKO 2020:18 — Use of Video in Cybercrime Trial
Facts: Several technical experts were required to provide testimony on digital evidence but could not appear in person due to travel restrictions.
Issue: Can expert witnesses testify via video link in complex criminal cases?
Decision: The court accepted video testimony, allowing real-time questions and clarifications.
Principle: Video testimony is suitable for technical or expert witnesses, ensuring efficiency and accuracy without compromising fairness.
3. Key Legal Principles from Finnish Case Law
Protection of Vulnerable Witnesses: Children, victims of violence, or traumatized witnesses can testify via video.
Fair Trial Guarantee: The defense must retain the ability to cross-examine witnesses. Video testimony cannot violate confrontation rights.
Practicality and Accessibility: Video testimony may also be used for logistical reasons, including distance or mobility issues.
International Application: Witnesses abroad can testify via video under Finnish law, maintaining procedural fairness.
Expert Witness Use: Video testimony is appropriate for technical or expert witnesses to enhance efficiency.
4. Summary Table of Selected Cases
| Case | Year | Facts | Issue | Decision | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 2002:89 | 2002 | Child witness in sexual abuse case | Can video replace live testimony? | Allowed video testimony | Vulnerable witnesses can testify via video with safeguards |
| KKO 2005:42 | 2005 | Domestic violence victim | Witness safety vs. defendant rights | Allowed | Safety of witness prioritized with cross-examination |
| KKO 2008:55 | 2008 | Multiple witnesses at distance | Practicality of video testimony | Allowed | Convenience justified if fairness maintained |
| KKO 2012:67 | 2012 | Witness abroad | International witness testimony | Allowed | Video testimony acceptable internationally |
| KKO 2015:29 | 2015 | Child witness in homicide | Trauma and confrontation | Allowed | Welfare of child balanced with defendant’s rights |
| KKO 2018:44 | 2018 | Disabled witness | Accessibility | Allowed | Accommodation for disability while preserving fairness |
| KKO 2020:18 | 2020 | Technical expert | Efficiency in cybercrime trial | Allowed | Video testimony suitable for experts |
Conclusion:
In Finland, video testimony is widely accepted for children, vulnerable victims, witnesses abroad, and technical experts. Courts consistently balance witness protection and accessibility with the defendant’s right to cross-examination, ensuring a fair trial. Video testimony has evolved as a practical, humane, and legally sound alternative in both criminal and civil proceedings.
RELATED Blog
comments