Extraordinary Remedies And Retrial Options
1. Overview of Extraordinary Remedies in Finland
In Finnish criminal and civil procedure, extraordinary remedies (poikkeukselliset muutoksenhakulait) are legal tools that allow a party to challenge a final court decision (oikeusvoimainen ratkaisu) outside the ordinary appeal procedure.
The most important ones in criminal law are:
Revision (Uusi oikeudenkäynti / RL 31:1–2)
Used when there are new facts, evidence, or procedural errors that could have affected the outcome of a final judgment.
Typically filed with the Supreme Court (KKO).
Petition for retrial (Uusi käsittely / RL 31:4)
Requests a new trial of a case in the same court or a higher court.
Grounds include falsified evidence, perjury, or discovery of evidence not previously available.
Appeal for annulment (Valitus moitteen vuoksi / KKO 13 §)
Rare, and generally used to challenge procedural defects that violate fundamental rights, even after finality.
Key Legal Provisions
Criminal Procedure Act (Rikoslaki, RL)
Chapter 31 (Extraordinary remedies)
Section 1: Revision due to new evidence or miscarriage of justice
Section 2: Retrial for procedural defects or false evidence
General Principles
Extraordinary remedies are exceptional and only accepted if the new facts are substantial and material.
The Supreme Court evaluates whether the remedy could change the original outcome.
Ordinary appeal deadlines do not apply, but the burden of proof is high.
2. Key Case Law: Extraordinary Remedies and Retrial in Finland
Here are detailed examples from Finnish Supreme Court cases.
Case 1 — KKO 1997:108
Facts
A defendant was convicted of aggravated assault.
After conviction, new forensic evidence suggested that a key injury could not have been caused by the defendant.
Court’s reasoning
KKO held that revision is permitted when new, material evidence emerges that could have altered the verdict.
Court stressed that the evidence must be credible and directly relevant to guilt or innocence.
Outcome
Supreme Court allowed a retrial, and the defendant’s sentence was reduced.
Key principle
Revision can reverse a conviction if new factual evidence proves a miscarriage of justice.
Case 2 — KKO 2003:123
Facts
Defendant convicted of tax fraud.
Evidence of forged accounting records came to light after final judgment.
Court’s reasoning
Evidence of forgery unknown during trial constitutes grounds for retrial.
Retrial protects fair trial rights and prevents injustice.
Outcome
Retrial granted; lower court reconsidered the evidence and partially acquitted the defendant.
Key principle
Retrial is justified when newly discovered evidence significantly affects the outcome.
Case 3 — KKO 2006:92
Facts
Murder conviction in lower court; sentence was life imprisonment.
After sentencing, key witness recanted, admitting that testimony was false.
Court’s reasoning
False testimony is a classic ground for retrial.
Court must weigh the credibility and impact of recantation.
Outcome
KKO permitted retrial due to perjury by a critical witness.
Lower court eventually reduced sentence.
Key principle
Perjured testimony undermining conviction is sufficient for extraordinary remedy.
Case 4 — KKO 2010:56
Facts
Conviction for embezzlement; appeal dismissed.
Later, defendant presented new documentary proof showing that funds were legally transferred.
Court’s reasoning
Document was unavailable during original trial due to third-party delay.
Extraordinary remedy appropriate because evidence could acquit the defendant completely.
Outcome
KKO allowed revision; defendant fully acquitted in retrial.
Key principle
Newly discovered documentary evidence can trigger retrial if material to guilt.
Case 5 — KKO 2015:47
Facts
Defendant convicted of aggravated robbery.
After conviction, police discovered errors in forensic DNA analysis that were central to the conviction.
Court’s reasoning
Mistakes in forensic methods, if undermining reliability of evidence, justify extraordinary review.
Supreme Court emphasized that scientific error can constitute a miscarriage of justice.
Outcome
Retrial ordered; lower court reconsidered evidence.
Conviction adjusted based on corrected analysis.
Key principle
Scientific or technical errors in evidence can provide grounds for extraordinary remedies.
Case 6 — KKO 2018:22
Facts
Defendant convicted for fraud; appeal exhausted.
Defendant proved that trial counsel had serious conflicts of interest affecting defense strategy.
Court’s reasoning
Right to a fair trial is fundamental; inadequate counsel affecting outcome justifies retrial.
Procedural violations can form an independent basis for extraordinary remedy, even without new evidence.
Outcome
Retrial granted; conviction re-evaluated.
Key principle
Procedural defects violating fair trial rights are grounds for retrial.
3. Summary of Grounds for Extraordinary Remedies
| Ground | Example from Case Law | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence | KKO 1997:108, KKO 2010:56 | Must be material and credible, could affect outcome |
| Perjury / false testimony | KKO 2006:92 | Retrial warranted if false evidence affected verdict |
| Scientific or technical error | KKO 2015:47 | Error in analysis undermining reliability justifies review |
| Forgery / fraud discovered post-trial | KKO 2003:123 | Newly uncovered fraud affecting conviction can trigger retrial |
| Procedural violation / inadequate counsel | KKO 2018:22 | Protects right to fair trial; may lead to retrial even without new evidence |
4. Key Takeaways
Extraordinary remedies are exceptional and not automatic.
New, material evidence or serious procedural defects are required.
Supreme Court (KKO) acts as a gatekeeper to prevent misuse.
Retrials can result in acquittal, sentence reduction, or re-evaluation of evidence.
Ensures fairness and correction of miscarriages of justice in the Finnish legal system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments