Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 20/2000 AI generated

Supreme Court allows defense counsel appointment for pre-1997 criminal cases under new 1998 law provisions.

Case Number KKO 20/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court permitted the appointment of defense counsel for a criminal case initiated before October 1, 1997, based on the new 1998 legislation. The prosecution argued that the old procedural rules applied to cases starting prior to the new law's enactment. The court ruled that the new provisions could be applied retroactively to ensure the defendant's right to legal representation was protected.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ROL 2 luku 1 § (107/1998); The court established that the new criminal procedure law provisions regarding defense counsel apply retroactively to cases initiated before the law's effective date to guarantee the defendant's right to legal assistance.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal procedure law retroactive application defense counsel appointment pre-1997 cases right to legal aid Supreme Court ruling procedural transition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ROL 2 luku 1 § (107/1998)
ROL 2 luku 1 § (107/1998)
AI generated
kko-precedent_1996_106
Supreme Court quashes Åland court's drunk driving sentence for applying 1993 law instead of 1976 law.
kko-precedent_1995_44
Supreme Court dismisses High Court's order to gather evidence for prosecution, citing ECHR Art. 6 equality of arms. High Court's decision to order supplementary investigation for prosecution violated fair trial principles. The court ruled that the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering.
kko-other_2002_773
Supreme Court allows lighter application of public peace disturbance law due to minor circumstances and lack of serious intent.
kko-precedent_1991_120
Supreme Court dismisses civil service evasion charge due to lighter law principle and insufficient prison term.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__1805
Court of Appeal dismissed prosecutor's request to consolidate multiple convictions into a single crime.

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

Kysymys mahdollisuudesta määrätä oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa annetun lain 2 luvun säännösten nojalla syytetylle puolustaja asiassa, joka oli tullut vireille ennen 1.10.1997.

ROL 2 luku 1 § (107/1998)