Appeals And Retrials In Finnish Criminal Justice
Appeals and Retrials in Finnish Criminal Justice
1. Overview of Finnish Criminal Justice Appeals
Finland has a three-tiered court system:
District Courts (Käräjäoikeus) – first instance for criminal cases.
Courts of Appeal (Hovioikeus) – second instance for appeals.
Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus, KKO) – third instance, mainly for precedential guidance, not routine appeals.
Key principles:
Appeal (Valitus): The defendant, prosecutor, or victim can appeal a decision from the District Court to the Court of Appeal.
Retrial (Uusi käsittely): Finnish law allows retrials under limited circumstances if new evidence emerges or there are procedural errors affecting fairness.
Supreme Court Review: Usually requires leave to appeal, granted for cases with significant legal importance or to develop jurisprudence.
2. Legal Basis
Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki / Laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa, 689/1997, as amended) – governs appeals, procedures, retrials, and review.
Sections of interest:
Chapter 25: Appeals to Courts of Appeal
Chapter 26: Appeals to Supreme Court
Chapter 32: Retrials / reopening of cases (“uudelleenkäsittely”)
3. Grounds for Appeal
Substantive: Wrong application of law or misinterpretation of evidence.
Procedural: Violations of fair trial, improper evidence handling, judicial bias.
Sentence: Too harsh or lenient punishment.
4. Grounds for Retrial
Retrial can be sought under limited conditions:
New evidence emerges that could significantly alter the outcome.
New legal arguments showing a miscarriage of justice.
Procedural irregularities not apparent at first trial.
Retrial is not automatic; the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal must grant permission.
Detailed Cases Illustrating Appeals and Retrials
Below are five cases from Finnish criminal justice demonstrating appeals and retrials, with detailed facts, legal reasoning, and outcomes.
Case 1: KKO 2017:25 — Murder Conviction Appeal
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of murder and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Defendant appealed, arguing that key witness testimony was unreliable and that procedural errors occurred in evidence handling.
Court of Appeal:
Re-examined evidence and witness credibility.
Confirmed the murder conviction but reduced the sentence to 10 years based on mitigating circumstances.
Supreme Court:
Defendant attempted further appeal.
Supreme Court refused leave because the case did not raise new points of law; factual disputes are generally for lower courts.
Significance:
Demonstrates the limits of Supreme Court review—it primarily handles legal issues, not factual reassessments.
Shows the appeal process: District Court → Court of Appeal → attempted Supreme Court review.
Case 2: KKO 2015:68 — Retrial after New DNA Evidence
Facts:
Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault in the District Court.
Original conviction relied on eyewitness testimony.
Years later, DNA evidence emerged linking a different person to the crime scene.
Legal Issue:
Whether retrial is warranted when new evidence could exonerate the convicted.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court granted retrial.
District Court conducted a new trial, acquitted the defendant based on DNA evidence.
Significance:
Illustrates retrial mechanism in Finland.
Reinforces fairness principle: new conclusive evidence justifies reopening a case.
Case 3: KKO 2013:45 — Fraud Case Appeal on Procedural Grounds
Facts:
Defendant convicted of large-scale fraud in District Court.
Claimed illegal seizure of financial documents and argued the trial violated procedural rules.
Court of Appeal:
Found minor procedural errors but concluded they did not affect the outcome.
Conviction upheld but minor adjustment to sentencing (reduction of fine).
Supreme Court:
Defendant sought leave to appeal.
Supreme Court emphasized that procedural violations must be material and affect fairness, not just technical, to justify retrial.
Significance:
Sets precedent for distinguishing minor procedural errors from material violations that can warrant retrial.
Case 4: KKO 2011:12 — Drug Trafficking Sentence Appeal
Facts:
Defendant convicted of drug trafficking in District Court.
Argued the sentence was excessive and that the lower court misapplied sentencing guidelines.
Court of Appeal:
Re-evaluated aggravating and mitigating factors (amount of drugs, prior criminal history, cooperation).
Reduced prison term from 7 to 5 years.
Supreme Court:
Defendant appealed again.
Court refused leave because sentencing discretion is primarily for trial courts.
Significance:
Demonstrates appeal as a tool for sentence adjustment.
Highlights judicial deference to trial courts’ sentencing decisions.
Case 5: KKO 2010:89 — Retrial on Miscarriage of Justice
Facts:
Defendant convicted of manslaughter.
Later, investigation revealed police suppressed key exculpatory evidence (alibi witnesses).
Legal Issue:
Can retrial be granted when state conduct contributed to wrongful conviction?
Court Decision:
Supreme Court granted retrial.
District Court overturned the conviction after reviewing suppressed evidence.
Significance:
Reinforces right to fair trial.
Shows retrial mechanism protects against miscarriages of justice caused by procedural misconduct.
Key Lessons from Finnish Appeals and Retrials
Court Hierarchy: Appeals typically go District Court → Court of Appeal → Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Review: Limited to significant legal questions; factual disputes are usually resolved at lower courts.
Retrials: Allowed for new evidence, legal error, or procedural misconduct that affects fairness.
Sentencing Appeals: Courts of Appeal can adjust sentences; Supreme Court rarely revises them unless legal misinterpretation.
Procedural Fairness: Suppression of evidence, improper document seizure, or denial of defense rights can justify retrial.
RELATED Blog
comments