Date when decision was rendered: 2.6.1992

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1849; R90/878

Reference to source

KKO 1992:73.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1992 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1992 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1992 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1993

Pages: pp. 343-346

Subject

basis of charges, fair trial, preparation of defence,
åtalsgrund, rättvis rättegång, förberedande av försvar,
syytteen perusteet, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, puolustuksen valmisteleminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 21, section 5-1 of the Penal Code, Chapter 14, section 3-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= strafflagen 21 kapitel 5 § 1 mom., rättegångsbalken 14 kapitel 3 § 1 mom.

= rikoslaki 21 luku 5 § 1 mom., oikeudenkäymiskaari 14 luku 3 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6-1, ECHR-6-3, ECHR-14-1, CCPR-14-3

Abstract

Articles 6-1 and 6-3 of the ECHR were cited by the Surpreme Court as justification for a ruling to shorten a person's prison sentence, as the lower courts had not properly informed the defendant of the possibility that he could be punished for a more serious crime than the one invoked by the prosecutor in the indictment.

If the juridical characterization of the behaviour is not described in the indictment itself, the court must, during the trial, inform the defendant of the possibility of his behaviour being characterized differently from the indictment presented by the prosecutor.The court was thus of the opinion that the defendant had not been informed in detail of the charges against him and had not had adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.Therefore he could not be convicted of aggravated assault but only of assault.

24.3.1998 / 22.4.2005 / ASADINMA

Date when decision was rendered: 27.12.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4632; R92/725

Reference to source

KKO 1993:164.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 725-727

Subject

fair trial, basis of charges,
rättvis rättegång, åtalsgrund,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, syytteen perusteet,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 14, section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 14 kapitel 3 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 14 luku 3 § art.

ECHR-6-1, ECHR-6-3, CCPR-14-1, CCPR-14-3

Abstract

The court of appeal had returned a criminal case to the court of first instance in order to give the defendants the possibility to be heard on an alternative juridicial characterisation of the offence, presented in the court of appeal by the prosecutor.The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court and stated, i.a., that the new characterisation should be dismissed.The Supreme Court referred to its own judgment 1992:73 in which the Court had, by referring to Articles 6-1 and 6-3 of the ECHR and Article 14-3 of the CCPR, stated that the defendant must be informed not only of the description of facts forming the basis for the indictment, but also of the juridical characterisation of the behaviour in question.

26.3.1998 / 24.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 13.7.1994

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2622; R93/44

Reference to source

KKO 1994:64.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1994 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1994 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1994 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1995

Pages: pp. 303-307

Subject

criminal charge, basis of charges, preparation of defence, right to be heard,
brottsanklagelse, åtalsgrund, förberedande av försvar, rätt att höras,
rikossyyte, syytteen perusteet, puolustuksen valmisteleminen, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 3 of the Narcotics Act; Chapter 5, section 3-1 of the Penal Code

= narkotikalagen 3 §; strafflagen 5 kapitel 3 § 1 mom.

= huumausainelaki 3 §; rikoslaki 5 luku 3 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6-3-c, CCPR-14-3-a

Abstract

A had been charged with a serious narcotic offence for illegal possession of 2 kilos of amphetamine together with B.During the proceedings in the court of first instance, the prosecutor secondarily demanded in A's absence that A be convicted for assistance to a serious narcotic offence for having stood guard as B handled the hidden amphetamine.A denied having possessed the drugs at any point.The court of first instance sentenced A to 10 months imprisonment, as it had been shown that A had stood guard while B fetched amphetamine from the hiding place and had helped B to open the hiding place.The fact that A had thus been associated with B was regarded as A having assisted B who sold the drugs.

A and the prosecutor brought the case to the court of appeal, which was of the opinion that it had not been shown that A would have assisted B in fetching drugs from the hiding place more than once.His sentence was therefore reduced to 8 months imprisonment.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, A requested that the charges against him are dropped, i.a., as the prosecutor had not demanded his punishment for the action for which he was sentenced.The Supreme Court found that the prosecutor had not made a new request to which A should have been given a chance to respond but only judicially redefined the deed in question.No new charges had been presented and A had not been accused of any action which had not been included in the charges presented in his presence.He had also had the possibility to respond to the charges and to state that his actions did not meet the requirement of being a full accomplice but only of assisting B in B`s crime.The Supreme Court therefore upheld the main decision of the court of appeal.(A vote 3 to 2.)

A dissenting justice stated that as A had not received detailed information about the charges against him in accordance with Article 6-3-a of the ECHR and Article 14-3-a of the CCPR, he should not have been sentenced on the basis of these charges.The rapporteur as well as the other dissenting justice made a general reference to A's legal safeguards and would have quashed the decision of the court of first instance and the court of appeal as A had not been heard personally regarding the secondary charges.

6.4.1998 / 14.3.2003 / LISNELLM