Miscarriages Of Justice In Finnish Courts
A miscarriage of justice occurs when a court convicts an innocent person or imposes an unjust sentence due to procedural errors, flawed evidence, improper investigation, or systemic issues. While Finland’s judicial system is highly regarded for transparency and fairness, errors can still occur, often related to:
Wrongful convictions based on unreliable witness testimony
Mistaken identity or misidentification
Procedural errors in evidence handling
Errors in expert analysis
Prosecutorial misconduct or investigative bias
Finnish law allows for appeals, and the Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) can reopen cases if new evidence emerges or errors are identified.
Detailed Case Studies of Miscarriages of Justice in Finland
Case 1: KKO 1999:93 – The “Turku Murder Case”
Facts:
A man was convicted of murder in Turku based largely on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The victim had been stabbed, and a witness identified the accused at the scene. No direct forensic evidence linked him to the crime.
Legal Issues:
The key question was whether eyewitness testimony alone was sufficient for conviction. The defense argued that the witness was under stress and had poor visibility at the crime scene.
Judgment:
Initially convicted in the District Court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal acquitted him due to unreliability of the eyewitness testimony and lack of corroborating evidence.
Significance:
Demonstrates the risk of wrongful conviction based on eyewitness misidentification.
Shows that appellate courts in Finland can rectify miscarriages by reviewing evidence critically.
Case 2: KKO 2003:45 – Wrongful Conviction in Drug Trafficking
Facts:
A man was convicted of large-scale drug trafficking. The conviction was based on intercepted phone calls and testimony from co-conspirators who later recanted. The accused had limited contact with the drugs in question.
Legal Issues:
Whether hearsay evidence and testimony from incentivized witnesses could be trusted.
Whether procedural errors in seizure and chain-of-custody affected fairness.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that the evidence was insufficient and that reliance on recanted co-conspirator testimony violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Significance:
Highlights the importance of reliable evidence and procedural correctness.
Demonstrates how wrongful convictions can result from improper reliance on incentivized testimony.
Case 3: KKO 2007:101 – The “Oulu Arson Case”
Facts:
A man was accused of setting fire to a commercial building in Oulu. He was convicted due to circumstantial evidence, including purchase receipts for accelerants near the time of the fire. Forensic analysis initially suggested accelerant use.
Legal Issues:
Accuracy of forensic methods in arson detection.
Whether the presence of accelerants implied intentional arson.
Judgment:
Later re-evaluation of forensic techniques showed contamination and false-positive results.
Supreme Court acquitted the man, citing insufficient evidence and flawed expert testimony.
Significance:
Shows how forensic errors can cause wrongful convictions.
Highlights the need for rigorous standards in expert analysis in criminal trials.
Case 4: KKO 2012:76 – The “Helsinki Assault Case”
Facts:
A man was convicted of aggravated assault based on testimony of the victim and several witnesses. Later, new evidence, including CCTV footage and alibi confirmation, contradicted the prosecution’s timeline.
Legal Issues:
Whether the new evidence warranted overturning the conviction.
Whether the original court erred in weighing witness statements over physical evidence.
Judgment:
Supreme Court vacated the conviction and ordered a retrial, which resulted in acquittal.
The Court emphasized the importance of corroborating physical evidence over testimonial evidence alone.
Significance:
Demonstrates the role of new evidence in correcting miscarriages of justice.
Shows that Finnish law allows retrials when credible exculpatory evidence emerges.
Case 5: KKO 2015:88 – Miscarriage Due to Procedural Errors
Facts:
A business owner was convicted of embezzlement. During investigation, some critical financial records were seized without proper warrants. The trial relied heavily on this evidence.
Legal Issues:
Whether improper evidence collection violated the defendant’s rights.
Whether the conviction could stand given procedural irregularities.
Judgment:
Supreme Court overturned the conviction. Evidence obtained improperly was deemed inadmissible, and remaining evidence was insufficient.
Emphasized adherence to procedural safeguards in evidence collection.
Significance:
Highlights procedural errors as a common cause of wrongful convictions.
Reinforces the principle that evidence must be lawfully obtained.
Case 6: KKO 2018:52 – Misidentification in Sexual Assault Case
Facts:
A man was convicted of sexual assault largely based on the victim’s identification in a police lineup. No DNA or forensic evidence linked him to the crime. Later, it emerged that the victim had initially misidentified someone else and that stress affected the memory.
Legal Issues:
Reliability of eyewitness identification under stressful conditions.
Whether lack of corroborating evidence could support conviction.
Judgment:
Supreme Court acquitted the man, ruling the identification was unreliable.
Emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in serious allegations like sexual assault.
Significance:
Shows the vulnerability of eyewitness testimony in high-stress situations.
Reinforces the principle that conviction must be based on strong, corroborated evidence.
Case 7: KKO 2020:15 – Wrongful Conviction in Drug Possession Case
Facts:
A student was convicted of possession of illegal substances found in a shared apartment. He claimed the drugs belonged to a roommate. Police failed to test fingerprints or DNA on the substances.
Legal Issues:
Determining ownership of drugs in a shared space.
Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction.
Judgment:
Supreme Court overturned the conviction due to lack of direct evidence.
Court noted that procedural investigation shortcomings contributed to the wrongful conviction.
Significance:
Illustrates miscarriages of justice arising from circumstantial evidence in shared environments.
Highlights the importance of thorough investigation and forensic testing.
Key Patterns in Miscarriages of Justice in Finland
Overreliance on Eyewitness Testimony: Many wrongful convictions stem from misidentification.
Forensic Errors: Flawed expert analysis or contamination has led to overturned convictions.
Procedural Errors: Improper evidence collection or mishandling violates the right to a fair trial.
Incentivized Witness Testimony: Co-conspirator or accomplice testimony may be unreliable.
New Evidence Can Correct Convictions: Finnish law allows retrials when exculpatory evidence emerges.
Circumstantial Evidence Alone is Risky: Convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence often result in appeals and reversals.
RELATED Blog
comments