|
Finland Criminal Courts
Criminal courts of the first instance were of two
types, each
having jurisdiction in distinct areas and each following
separate
procedures. The first type of court provided criminal
justice in
thirty "old towns," including Helsinki. These
long-established
town courts consisted of three professional judges--one of
whom
presided--and two lay jurors from the city council.
Circuit
courts, the second type, exercised jurisdiction in rural
districts and in cities incorporated after 1958. The
latter
category included Espoo and Vantaa, Finland's fourth and
fifth
largest cities, respectively, located in the greater
Helsinki
metropolitan area. More than 140 circuit courts in 71
judicial
districts formed this system. Circuit courts were
conducted by a
professional judge, assisted by five to seven jurors
elected for
the term of the court by the local municipal council.
Public
prosecutors for both kinds of courts determined whether to
press
charges against persons accused of offenses solely on the
basis
of evidence presented by police investigation.
Criminal cases were heard in continuous sessions by
both
types of courts of the first instance. Verdicts were
determined
by the vote of the panel of judges and jurors. A
two-to-one
majority was sufficient in three-member town courts. In
circuit
courts, however, the verdict of the presiding judge
prevailed if
the jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision. Measures
were
pending in 1988 to harmonize court procedures.
Cases involving criminal offenses by on-duty members of
the
Defense Forces were tried in fifteen special courts of the
first
instance presided over by a panel of military judges.
These
courts-martial were integrated into the criminal courts
system.
Appeals from the courts of the first instance were
heard in
six three-member regional courts of appeal that were also
responsible for supervising the lower courts. When a panel
considered appeals from courts-martial, two military
judges were
added. About two-thirds of the business of appeals courts
involved criminal cases. The Supreme Court, which
ordinarily sat
in panels of five members, handled final appeals from
criminal
cases. Permission to appeal was, however, granted by a
threemember panel. Because of a tendency by the Supreme Court
to limit
the cases reviewed to those having value as precedents,
the
courts of appeal had become increasingly important in
criminal
matters.
Criminal actions were preceded by a police pretrial
investigation. A suspect could be detained by the police
for
questioning, without access to a lawyer, for three days;
this
period could be extended to fourteen days, for special
reasons on
proper authority and with notification to the court.
Reforms
scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1989, shortened the
maximum detention to seven days, with access to a lawyer.
The
institutions of habeas corpus and bail did not exist as
such.
Those accused of serious crimes were required to remain in
custody. Those accused of minor offenses could be released
on
personal recognizance at the court's discretion.
Preventive
detention was authorized only during a declared state of
war for
variously defined offenses, such as treason or mutiny.
Court proceedings were conducted by the presiding
judge, who
normally also questioned witnesses. The entire written
court
record was used as the basis for proceedings in the courts
of
appeals. Oral hearings were conducted only in those
criminal
cases in which courts of appeal had original jurisdiction,
such
as criminal charges against certain high officials.
Neither the
accused nor his counsel was present when a case was
considered by
the court of appeal. An accused person had the right to
effective
counsel. Persons lacking sufficient funds were entitled to
free
proceedings so that their attorneys' fees and direct costs
were
borne by the state. Local courts could decide to conduct a
trial
behind closed doors in juvenile, domestic, or guardianship
cases,
or when publicity would offend morality or endanger state
secrets.
Data as of December 1988
|
