Date when decision was rendered: 3.4.1995

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1298; R93/803

Reference to source

KKO 1995:66.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1995 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 277-280

Subject

right to examine witnesses, family, criminal charge,
rätt att förhöra vittnen, familj, brottsanklagelse,
oikeus kuulustella todistajia, perhe, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 20 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 20 §.

ECHR-6-3-d, CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

A was charged with drunken driving on a public road under circumstances that endangered the safety of others.While sitting next to the driver B, who was A's son, A had gripped the steering wheel and caused B to lose control of the car.He was also charged with having neglected to be as careful as the situation merited when having gripped the steering wheel, thereby causing the car to slide off the road.A denied the charges.During the pretrial investigation, B had told police officer C that A had gripped the wheel causing the car to slide off the road.B refused to stand as a witness in the court of first instance referring to his family relations with A.Having heard C's testimony, the court of first instance found A guilty as charged.

The court of appeal upheld the decision, referring, i.a., to C's statement and the fact that A had admitted during the pretrial investigation that he had consumed considerable amounts of alcohol before getting into the car.C had also seen A in town in a drunken condition a few hours before the incident.

The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which gives relatives a right to refuse to take the witness stand, as well as to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR, which give the accused a right to examine or have examined witnesses against him.As B refused to testify, A had no possibility to question him personally.Hearing C on B's statement constituted a practical denial of the protection of close relatives laid down in Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.The court of first instance should thus not have allowed C to testify on the above-mentioned issues or used his statement as evidence against A.No other evidence of A's guilt existed.The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the court of first instance and the court of appeal, released A from the punishment and dismissed the charges against him.

16.4.1998 / 13.3.2003 / LISNELLM