Should dwindling resources be used for legal protection or tightening criminal policy?

Minister of Justice Leena Meri (Finns Party) would like to make it easier for courts to detain persons suspected of and convicted of crimes (Helsingin Sanomat, July 6 2025). This matter has a direct connection to the right of appeal for those convicted of crimes.

In Finland, appeals can be made to the Court of Appeal against all District Court judgments. If the sentence is more than eight months' imprisonment, no separate leave to appeal is required. The Court of Appeal examines the appeal, which often means a new trial in the Court of Appeal.

Processing times are now so long that detention and the handling of appeals cannot be reconciled. If defendants were detained or kept in detention more than at present, the right of appeal would often have no significance, because the Court of Appeal often processes appeals for even a year or two. It makes sense to withdraw the appeal once the sentence has been served. In one case, a five-year prison sentence proved too short for the Court of Appeal to have time to examine its merits before the sentence would have been served.

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is unambiguous in that suspicion of having committed even a serious crime alone does not justify deprivation of liberty: in addition, there must be some special reason to keep the person in pre-trial detention. On the other hand, there is room for flexibility in how extensive a right of appeal a member state of the European Convention on Human Rights must guarantee to a person convicted of a crime. In this respect, Finland has a very comprehensive right of appeal by European standards. Prosecutors also commonly exercise their right of appeal. The question is whether dwindling resources are used for legal protection or for tightening criminal policy.

Markku Fredman

Lawyer,
Professor of practice
Helsinki

(This is a letter to the editor published 14 July 2025 in Helsingin Sanomat.)