Function Of District Courts In Criminal Cases
1. Function of District Courts in Criminal Cases
In Finland, district courts (Käräjäoikeus) are the courts of first instance for criminal cases. Their functions in criminal proceedings include:
Receiving Criminal Complaints:
District courts handle cases initiated by the prosecutor (julkinen syyttäjä) after police investigations.
Fact-Finding:
District courts examine evidence, hear witnesses, and determine the facts of the case.
They assess the credibility of witnesses and the admissibility of evidence.
Application of Law:
They determine whether the defendant’s actions constitute a criminal offence under the Criminal Code.
They apply relevant sections (e.g., theft, assault, homicide) and consider aggravating/mitigating circumstances.
Sentencing:
District courts impose penalties such as fines, conditional imprisonment, community service, or imprisonment.
They may also decide on confiscation of illegal items (e.g., weapons, stolen property).
Pre-trial Decisions:
Handling remand in custody, bail, or temporary restraining measures.
Appeal Process:
Decisions by district courts can be appealed to courts of appeal (hovioikeus) and ultimately to the Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus).
Summary: District courts are the primary gatekeepers of the Finnish criminal justice system, establishing facts, interpreting law, and imposing penalties.
2. Case Law Illustrating District Court Functions
Here are five detailed cases highlighting how district courts handle criminal matters:
Case 1: Theft Case – Helsinki District Court, T 104/2014
Facts:
The defendant was accused of stealing electronic devices from a store. Police recovered part of the stolen goods at the defendant’s home.
District Court Action:
Examined CCTV footage, witness statements, and forensic evidence.
Heard the defendant’s defense claiming mistaken identity.
Ruling:
The court concluded that the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentence: 6 months conditional imprisonment and a requirement to return stolen goods or pay compensation.
Significance:
Demonstrates the district court’s role in fact-finding and evidence assessment.
Shows how courts balance mitigating factors (first-time offender, cooperation with authorities).
Case 2: Assault Case – Tampere District Court, R 22/2016
Facts:
The defendant assaulted a neighbor during a dispute, causing minor injuries.
District Court Action:
Held a trial, hearing both parties and witnesses.
Ordered medical examination reports to assess the extent of injuries.
Ruling:
Found the defendant guilty under Chapter 21, Section 5 of the Criminal Code (assault).
Sentence: Conditional imprisonment of 4 months and mandatory anger management course.
Significance:
Highlights the district court’s function in evaluating severity of crime and personal circumstances in sentencing.
Case 3: Drug Offence – Oulu District Court, T 18/2018
Facts:
Defendant caught in possession of illegal narcotics for personal use.
District Court Action:
Examined police reports, chemical analysis of drugs, and prior criminal record.
Conducted in-camera hearings due to sensitive nature.
Ruling:
Found the defendant guilty of illegal possession of narcotics.
Sentence: Fine and probation, rather than imprisonment, considering first-time offense and small quantity.
Significance:
Shows district court discretion in sentencing, particularly for non-violent offences.
Case 4: Homicide Case – Turku District Court, T 7/2019
Facts:
Defendant accused of causing death during a domestic dispute.
District Court Action:
Conducted a full trial with witnesses, forensic experts, and psychiatric evaluation.
Evaluated intent, self-defense claims, and mental state.
Ruling:
Found the defendant guilty of manslaughter (tappo) rather than premeditated murder.
Sentence: 6 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Illustrates district courts’ comprehensive fact-finding and legal analysis, including intent and mitigating circumstances.
Case 5: Fraud Case – Jyväskylä District Court, R 11/2020
Facts:
Defendant accused of defrauding multiple companies using falsified invoices.
District Court Action:
Heard multiple witnesses, reviewed financial records, and analyzed bank transactions.
Evaluated whether the actions met the legal threshold for fraud under Chapter 36, Section 1 of the Criminal Code.
Ruling:
Found guilty of aggravated fraud due to large sums involved.
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment and full restitution to victims.
Significance:
Shows district courts handle complex financial crimes, weighing intent, planning, and scale of offense.
3. Key Takeaways
District courts handle initial trials: fact-finding, legal interpretation, and sentencing.
They balance evidence and legal standards to determine guilt.
They consider aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing.
They manage procedural decisions like bail, custody, and temporary measures.
Their decisions can be appealed, showing their role as the first filter in criminal justice.
RELATED Blog
comments