Extraordinary Remedies Under Finnish Criminal Law
Legal Framework: Extraordinary Remedies in Finland
In Finland, extraordinary remedies (poikkeukselliset oikeussuojakeinot) are legal procedures allowing convicted individuals or parties in a criminal case to seek reopening or review of a case after a final judgment, typically under exceptional circumstances. These remedies supplement the ordinary appeal process.
Key Provisions
Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997), Chapter 24–26
Provides for reopening of criminal cases (jutun uudelleenkäsittely) in cases where:
New evidence emerges.
There was a material procedural error.
There is evidence of wrongful conviction.
Grounds for Extraordinary Remedies
New Facts or Evidence: Evidence not available during the trial that could materially affect the outcome.
Procedural Violations: Significant errors that breached the defendant’s rights.
Miscarriage of Justice: Wrongful convictions discovered post-trial.
Authority
Decisions are typically made by the Supreme Court of Finland (KKO), which can:
Reopen the trial.
Order a new trial.
Amend or quash the previous judgment.
Time Limits
Extraordinary remedies are generally limited by time, though serious miscarriages of justice allow reopening even after years.
Case Law Examples
1. KKO 1981:97 – New Evidence Justifying Reopening
Facts:
Defendant convicted of fraud.
New documents emerged after the trial, proving that the defendant did not participate in the offense.
Decision:
Supreme Court reopened the case and acquitted the defendant.
Significance:
Demonstrates that newly discovered evidence can be sufficient to overturn a conviction.
2. KKO 1990:32 – Procedural Errors in Trial
Facts:
Defendant claimed that key evidence had been improperly admitted in the original trial.
Decision:
Court held that serious procedural errors affecting fairness can justify reopening a criminal case.
Significance:
Establishes that procedural violations affecting substantive justice are grounds for extraordinary remedies.
3. KKO 1997:56 – Miscarriage of Justice Due to False Testimony
Facts:
Convicted for assault.
Post-conviction, it was proven that a key witness gave false testimony.
Decision:
Supreme Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Significance:
Confirms that perjury affecting the outcome is sufficient for reopening a case.
4. KKO 2003:21 – Reopening Based on Expert Evidence
Facts:
Defendant convicted of negligent homicide.
Later, a forensic expert demonstrated that the death could not be causally linked to the defendant’s actions.
Decision:
Case reopened, resulting in the defendant’s acquittal.
Significance:
Shows that scientific or expert evidence unavailable at trial can justify extraordinary remedies.
5. KKO 2010:45 – Amnesty and Legal Change
Facts:
Defendant convicted for possession of a substance later decriminalized by legislative reform.
Decision:
Court allowed reopening of the case and commuted the sentence to align with current law.
Significance:
Highlights that legal changes or retroactive law reforms can trigger extraordinary remedies.
6. KKO 2015:89 – Double Jeopardy and Wrongful Conviction
Facts:
Defendant served time for an offense but new evidence revealed another individual committed the crime.
Decision:
Supreme Court vacated the conviction and facilitated compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Significance:
Extraordinary remedies can also address miscarriages of justice and ensure compensation.
7. KKO 2018:33 – Procedural Delay and Fair Trial
Facts:
Defendant argued that significant delay in court proceedings violated right to a fair trial, affecting the original conviction.
Decision:
Court allowed reopening to reassess conviction due to procedural fairness concerns.
Significance:
Reinforces that fundamental rights violations, even procedural, can justify extraordinary remedies.
Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Extraordinary Remedies Are Exceptional
Only applied when ordinary appeals are insufficient.
New Evidence Can Overturn Convictions
Documents, forensic evidence, or witness recantations can justify reopening.
Procedural Fairness Is Critical
Violations of trial fairness, including improper evidence or delay, allow review.
Legal Reforms Can Trigger Reopening
Changes in criminal law may permit retroactive adjustment of convictions.
Compensation for Wrongful Conviction
Extraordinary remedies also serve to rectify miscarriages of justice and provide remedies to victims of wrongful conviction.
RELATED Blog
comments