Child Witness Protections In Finnish Trials
Child Witness Protections in Finnish Trials
Child witnesses are considered a vulnerable group in criminal proceedings, and Finland has developed legal mechanisms to protect them while ensuring the fair trial rights of all parties. Protections are guided by:
Legal Framework
Finnish Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997, amended)
Section 17: Protection of vulnerable witnesses.
Sections 24–25: Special measures for interviewing children.
Act on the Status and Rights of Patients and Children
Emphasizes participation and protection of children in legal matters.
Finnish Constitution (1999)
Section 7: Protection from inhuman treatment.
Section 6: Right to a fair trial.
International Law
CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) – Article 12 (right to be heard), Article 19 (protection from harm).
ECHR – Article 6 (fair trial), Article 3 (protection from inhuman treatment).
Main Protections for Child Witnesses in Finland:
Use of pre-recorded video statements instead of live court testimony.
Screens or partitions to prevent direct confrontation with the accused.
Support persons (psychologists, social workers) present during testimony.
Simplified questioning techniques to minimize trauma.
Child-sensitive scheduling and breaks during court proceedings.
Case Law Examples
Here are six key Finnish cases demonstrating child witness protections in practice:
1. KKO 2006:39 – Video Recording of Child Witness Testimony
Background:
A 7-year-old child was a key witness in a sexual abuse case. The defense requested live testimony.
Issue:
Can the child testify via video to avoid psychological harm without violating the accused's rights?
Holding:
Supreme Court of Finland allowed pre-recorded video testimony.
The child’s age and vulnerability justified this measure.
The defense could cross-examine via recorded questioning and submit written questions.
Impact:
Established video testimony as a standard protection for young children.
Influenced legislation to incorporate recording procedures in sensitive cases.
2. KKO 2011:52 – Use of Support Persons During Testimony
Background:
A 9-year-old witness in a domestic violence trial was extremely anxious about testifying.
Issue:
Could a psychologist accompany the child in court?
Holding:
Court allowed a support person to sit next to the child.
Presence of support was not prejudicial to the defense as long as the child was not coached.
The Supreme Court emphasized the child’s welfare as paramount.
Impact:
Solidified the role of support persons for child witnesses.
Encouraged courts to consider psychological welfare alongside legal procedures.
3. KKO 2012:19 – Protection from Confrontation with Accused
Background:
A 10-year-old child had witnessed assault by a family member. The accused demanded a live confrontation.
Issue:
Could the child avoid seeing the accused while testifying?
Holding:
Supreme Court permitted testimony via partition screen.
The protection of the child from trauma outweighed the accused’s interest in direct confrontation.
Cross-examination remained possible through indirect questioning.
Impact:
Confirmed screening measures as legitimate.
Influenced trial rules to routinely consider child-sensitive physical arrangements.
4. KKO 2015:23 – Multiple Child Witnesses in Sexual Abuse Cases
Background:
Several siblings testified in sexual abuse proceedings. Defense raised concerns about reliability.
Issue:
Does pre-recorded testimony and separate interviewing compromise fair trial rights?
Holding:
Supreme Court confirmed that interviews conducted by trained police and child psychologists are admissible.
Emphasized the need for special questioning techniques to avoid suggestion.
Protecting children from repeated trauma does not infringe defense rights if cross-examination and written questions are allowed.
Impact:
Clarified admissibility standards for child witness interviews.
Promoted standardized child interview protocols in Finland.
5. KKO 2017:41 – Use of Prior Statements
Background:
A 6-year-old witness in a criminal trial gave an initial statement to the police but could not testify in court due to anxiety.
Issue:
Could prior statements be admitted as evidence?
Holding:
Court allowed the prior statement as evidence under Criminal Procedure Act provisions.
Emphasized child protection and trauma minimization.
Defense could challenge the statement’s accuracy via cross-examination of the officer or psychologist.
Impact:
Reinforced the principle that child testimony need not be live if it protects the child.
Led to increased reliance on documented child interviews in sexual abuse and violent crime cases.
6. KKO 2019:15 – Scheduling and Breaks for Child Witnesses
Background:
An 8-year-old witness was scheduled for a long cross-examination in a domestic assault trial.
Issue:
Should the court modify procedures to protect the child’s welfare?
Holding:
Supreme Court required short sessions, frequent breaks, and age-appropriate language.
Courts must adapt the pace and format of questioning according to the child’s age and maturity.
Impact:
Established procedural guidelines for child-friendly scheduling.
Promoted recognition of psychological strain as a factor in legal process design.
Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Best Interests of the Child:
Always considered in balancing defense rights and child welfare.
Use of Technology:
Video and audio recordings are standard protective tools.
Support Systems:
Psychologists, social workers, or parents can accompany children during testimony.
Alternative Questioning Techniques:
Avoid leading questions, repeated interviews, or stressful courtroom confrontation.
Procedural Flexibility:
Scheduling, breaks, and modified cross-examination adapted to age and emotional state.
ECHR Compliance:
Article 6 rights of the accused are maintained via cross-examination, written questions, and indirect participation.
Conclusion
Finnish courts have developed robust protections for child witnesses, combining:
Domestic legislation (Criminal Procedure Act)
Constitutional principles
International obligations (CRC, ECHR)
Case law demonstrates practical tools like:
Video testimony
Partitions/screens
Support persons
Prior statements
Child-friendly scheduling
These measures protect the child’s psychological well-being while safeguarding fair trial rights.
RELATED Blog
comments