Legislator Case Law & Legislation
Helsingin HO 04.12.1986 1914 AI generated

Court dismisses prosecution for absence from trial when two years have passed since decision date.

Case Number Helsingin HO 04.12.1986 1914
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court of appeal dismissed the prosecution's case against A. for failing to appear as a respondent. Although the respondent was absent without legal impediment and the prosecution failed to submit a statement, the prosecution waited two years before the decision was made. The court ruled that the prosecution's right to punish for this absence had expired under the relevant statute of limitations provisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RL 8:1 § 1 mom. 4 kohda; OK 12:17 § 1 mom. The prosecution's right to impose a penalty for a respondent's absence from trial expires if two years pass between the absence and the decision date.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations criminal procedure absence from trial prosecution rights time bar respondent status penalty expiration

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RL 8:1 § 1 mom. 4 kohda
poissaolosta rangaistukseen oli RL 8:1 § 1 mom. 4 kohdan mukaan verrattuna OK 12:17 § 1 mom:iin rauennut.
OK 12:17 § 1 mom.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1981-II-154
AI generated

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A. oli syyteasiassa ollut ilman laillista estettä poissa RO:sta vastaajana. RO ei ollut antanut siitä lausuntoa. Kun poissaolosta HO:n päätöksen antopäivään oli kulunut kaksi vuotta, oikeus tuomita A. poissaolosta rangaistukseen oli RL 8:1 § 1 mom. 4 kohdan mukaan verrattuna OK 12:17 § 1 mom:iin rauennut.

Ks. KKO:1981-II-154

Läsnä: Heikkilä, Vihuri (apuj.) ja Hokkanen (apuj.) Esittelijä: Soikkeli

Lainvoimainen