Introduction
Introduction
Basic procedural rules
In Finland, the major procedural principles are confirmed in the Constitution, Pre-Trial-Investigation Act, the Coercive Means Act, and the Code of Judicial Procedure (CJP). The Constitution guarantees a fair trial for everybody as laid down in the law. This right concerns also the victim or the injured party. In this sense, the Constitution goes further than the ECHR, which only regulates the defendant. Fairness of trial extends also beyond court proceedings, and covers the proceedings as a whole, including, for example, the fairness of the pre-trial investigations.
The criminal procedure is mainly accusatorial and the public prosecutor bears the burden of proof. The prosecutor is responsible to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court remains fairly passive through the whole proceedings, although the judge may clarify ambiguities and fill in gaps in the trial documents by asking questions to the parties. The court may not summon a witness on its own initiative in case of complainant offence, and very rarely does that even in other cases.
The law of criminal proceedings was reformed in 1998. The reform stressed three basic principles: the principles of concentration of the proceedings (after preliminary preparations the whole case should be dealt with in one main hearing and postponement should be possible only in exceptional cases), oral hearings (all evidence must be presented in the trial orally and the opposing party has the right to cross-examine all evidence presented against him or her) and the principle of immediacy (e.g. witness hearings cannot be substituted by reading of police reports).
The purpose of the principles of oral hearings, immediacy and concentration is to ensure the best possible examination of the evidence. The court cannot refuse to hear a witness who has already been heard during police investigation, even if there would be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused.
Since 2004, mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member-States of the EU provides wide opportunities to use audio and video-link conferencing in the presentation of witness evidence both in international and domestic criminal proceedings. The Convention has already been implemented by Finnish legislation.
Charges can be brought either by the public prosecutor or the victim. The victim has a right to press charges in all categories of offences, however, where public prosecution offences are concerned, only if the prosecutor has first decided not to prosecute.
The court system is arranged in three tiers. In the first instance (local) courts the normal composition is one legally trained judge and three lay judges. In complex cases, they may be supplemented with a second trained judge and a fourth lay judge. Simple criminal cases, with a maximum statutory penalty of a fine or imprisonment for 18 months, may be dealt with by one legally trained judge. In these cases, at most fines can be imposed.
The hearings are all public. However, if the court finds that the interests of the victim so require, the court may order the process and certain parts of the sentence closed for the general public. If a person under fifteen years of age is heard in the proceedings, or if a secret document is presented, the hearing can be closed in this manner. The court may also exclude the public partly or totally from the hearing, if the charges concern a sexual offence, defamation or another offence dealing with sensitive issues of privacy, or if the accused is under eighteen years of age.
All parties, the defendant, the prosecutor and the victim, have an unrestricted and independent right to appeal. The appeals are heard by six courts of appeal. The procedure follows the same basic principles as in local court. This concerns also the principle of oral hearing. In connection with the procedural reforms of the late 1990s, Finland could remove the reservations made to the European Convention of Human Rights Sect. 6 subs. 1 concerning the right to an oral hearing before, i.e., court of appeal. Before these reforms, the process in appellate courts was based on written documents. The appeal may pertain to all, or part, of the grounds of the decision or the sentence. Appellate courts review the lower court’s ruling both on factual and legal grounds including for example, both the question of guilt and the level of punishment. The highest level is the Supreme Court, to which appeals can go if the Supreme Court grants a leave of appeal only.
The changing role of the prosecutor
The role of the public prosecutor has traditionally included prosecuting offences in a court of law. Evaluation of evidence and legal questions has been a major aspect of this role. The final determination of guilt as well as the imposition of sanctions has traditionally been the sole domain of the court. During the last decades part of this judicial power has, however, been shifted from the courts to the prosecutor.
Traditionally, the public prosecutor was bound by the principle of legality. He was obliged to bring charges whenever the evidence was sufficient and the act in question fulfilled the conditions of criminal liability. However, in the 1990s the public prosecutor’s right to waive charges was extended to a great extent (a development towards the principle of opportunity), and it can be said that in practice the prosecutor has a large amount of discretion to drop a charge.
In 1994, the prosecutors received the right to order summary fines. Previously, this had been the duty of a judge. In both these cases, the prosecutor refutes the presumption of innocence and imposes the sanction. The sanction adherent to imputable non-prosecution is an expression of blame inherent in a condemnatory decision, whereas in summary penal order proceedings a prosecutor can impose a fine and order forfeiture.
The second major change in the role of the prosecutor took place in connection with the constitutional reform of 1995 and the following reform of the CJP 1998. The latter placed the prosecutor in a key-position in the criminal process. The former stressed the urge to ensure that the legal rights and guarantees of all parties shall be fully respected during all stages of the process.
As a result of all this, the prosecutor has more responsibilities in carrying the case through the criminal process and taking care of the legal right of the parties (prosecutor as a motor). Furthermore, the prosecutor has been given more powers to decide which cases deserve to be handled by the court (prosecutor as a filter). And the prosecutor has been vested with more independent powers to decide on the final legal consequences of an act (prosecutor acting as a judge). As it seems, this development has not ended there as these procedural reforms have increased the co-operation between the prosecutor and the police. At the same time, the police have received more powers to use special or unconventional investigation methods. This in turn, has raised the question whether prosecutors should exercise more control over the use of these methods.
Organisation of the Prosecution service
Prosecutors are organised in two tiers. The Office of the Prosecutor-General acts as the central administrative authority of the prosecution service. The seventy local units are either distinct prosecution bureaux or prosecution offices within the general district bureaux. Some prosecutors work in the prosecution offices of the district bureau, while others work in the separate prosecution bureaux. The organisational structure of the administrative district does not affect the independence of the prosecutors. Also in terms of results expected, the prosecution units are separate from the administrative districts; each unit negotiates annually with the Office of the Prosecutor-General on its budgetary allocation and the results to be achieved.
The prosecution service has 539 personnel, 335 of which are prosecutors. The proportion of women among the prosecutors has been continuously rising; they now make up over one third of the total number.
Basic procedural rules
In Finland, the major procedural principles are confirmed in the Constitution, Pre-Trial-Investigation Act, the Coercive Means Act, and the Code of Judicial Procedure (CJP). The Constitution guarantees a fair trial for everybody as laid down in the law. This right concerns also the victim or the injured party. In this sense, the Constitution goes further than the ECHR, which only regulates the defendant. Fairness of trial extends also beyond court proceedings, and covers the proceedings as a whole, including, for example, the fairness of the pre-trial investigations.
The criminal procedure is mainly accusatorial and the public prosecutor bears the burden of proof. The prosecutor is responsible to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court remains fairly passive through the whole proceedings, although the judge may clarify ambiguities and fill in gaps in the trial documents by asking questions to the parties. The court may not summon a witness on its own initiative in case of complainant offence, and very rarely does that even in other cases.
The law of criminal proceedings was reformed in 1998. The reform stressed three basic principles: the principles of concentration of the proceedings (after preliminary preparations the whole case should be dealt with in one main hearing and postponement should be possible only in exceptional cases), oral hearings (all evidence must be presented in the trial orally and the opposing party has the right to cross-examine all evidence presented against him or her) and the principle of immediacy (e.g. witness hearings cannot be substituted by reading of police reports).
The purpose of the principles of oral hearings, immediacy and concentration is to ensure the best possible examination of the evidence. The court cannot refuse to hear a witness who has already been heard during police investigation, even if there would be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused.
Since 2004, mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member-States of the EU provides wide opportunities to use audio and video-link conferencing in the presentation of witness evidence both in international and domestic criminal proceedings. The Convention has already been implemented by Finnish legislation.
Charges can be brought either by the public prosecutor or the victim. The victim has a right to press charges in all categories of offences, however, where public prosecution offences are concerned, only if the prosecutor has first decided not to prosecute.
The court system is arranged in three tiers. In the first instance (local) courts the normal composition is one legally trained judge and three lay judges. In complex cases, they may be supplemented with a second trained judge and a fourth lay judge. Simple criminal cases, with a maximum statutory penalty of a fine or imprisonment for 18 months, may be dealt with by one legally trained judge. In these cases, at most fines can be imposed.
The hearings are all public. However, if the court finds that the interests of the victim so require, the court may order the process and certain parts of the sentence closed for the general public. If a person under fifteen years of age is heard in the proceedings, or if a secret document is presented, the hearing can be closed in this manner. The court may also exclude the public partly or totally from the hearing, if the charges concern a sexual offence, defamation or another offence dealing with sensitive issues of privacy, or if the accused is under eighteen years of age.
All parties, the defendant, the prosecutor and the victim, have an unrestricted and independent right to appeal. The appeals are heard by six courts of appeal. The procedure follows the same basic principles as in local court. This concerns also the principle of oral hearing. In connection with the procedural reforms of the late 1990s, Finland could remove the reservations made to the European Convention of Human Rights Sect. 6 subs. 1 concerning the right to an oral hearing before, i.e., court of appeal. Before these reforms, the process in appellate courts was based on written documents. The appeal may pertain to all, or part, of the grounds of the decision or the sentence. Appellate courts review the lower court’s ruling both on factual and legal grounds including for example, both the question of guilt and the level of punishment. The highest level is the Supreme Court, to which appeals can go if the Supreme Court grants a leave of appeal only.
The changing role of the prosecutor
The role of the public prosecutor has traditionally included prosecuting offences in a court of law. Evaluation of evidence and legal questions has been a major aspect of this role. The final determination of guilt as well as the imposition of sanctions has traditionally been the sole domain of the court. During the last decades part of this judicial power has, however, been shifted from the courts to the prosecutor.
Traditionally, the public prosecutor was bound by the principle of legality. He was obliged to bring charges whenever the evidence was sufficient and the act in question fulfilled the conditions of criminal liability. However, in the 1990s the public prosecutor’s right to waive charges was extended to a great extent (a development towards the principle of opportunity), and it can be said that in practice the prosecutor has a large amount of discretion to drop a charge.
In 1994, the prosecutors received the right to order summary fines. Previously, this had been the duty of a judge. In both these cases, the prosecutor refutes the presumption of innocence and imposes the sanction. The sanction adherent to imputable non-prosecution is an expression of blame inherent in a condemnatory decision, whereas in summary penal order proceedings a prosecutor can impose a fine and order forfeiture.
The second major change in the role of the prosecutor took place in connection with the constitutional reform of 1995 and the following reform of the CJP 1998. The latter placed the prosecutor in a key-position in the criminal process. The former stressed the urge to ensure that the legal rights and guarantees of all parties shall be fully respected during all stages of the process.
As a result of all this, the prosecutor has more responsibilities in carrying the case through the criminal process and taking care of the legal right of the parties (prosecutor as a motor). Furthermore, the prosecutor has been given more powers to decide which cases deserve to be handled by the court (prosecutor as a filter). And the prosecutor has been vested with more independent powers to decide on the final legal consequences of an act (prosecutor acting as a judge). As it seems, this development has not ended there as these procedural reforms have increased the co-operation between the prosecutor and the police. At the same time, the police have received more powers to use special or unconventional investigation methods. This in turn, has raised the question whether prosecutors should exercise more control over the use of these methods.
Organisation of the Prosecution service
Prosecutors are organised in two tiers. The Office of the Prosecutor-General acts as the central administrative authority of the prosecution service. The seventy local units are either distinct prosecution bureaux or prosecution offices within the general district bureaux. Some prosecutors work in the prosecution offices of the district bureau, while others work in the separate prosecution bureaux. The organisational structure of the administrative district does not affect the independence of the prosecutors. Also in terms of results expected, the prosecution units are separate from the administrative districts; each unit negotiates annually with the Office of the Prosecutor-General on its budgetary allocation and the results to be achieved.
The prosecution service has 539 personnel, 335 of which are prosecutors. The proportion of women among the prosecutors has been continuously rising; they now make up over one third of the total number.
