Lawsuits|The shelling process was interrupted in Turku due to the lack of an assistant. Sometimes the accused can survive without an assistant, but not always.
The summary is made by artificial intelligence and checked by a human.
The district court of Varsinais-Finland dealt with a case where the accused arrived in the hall without an assistant.
The accused was not aware of his right to a free assistant.
Judge Katja Mäki stated that the absence of an assistant is not uncommon.
The trial was moved, which causes additional costs and trouble for all parties.
Can you and is it worth it for the accused to participate in his trial without an assistant, i.e. for example a lawyer or a lawyer?
The matter came up recently in the district court of Varsinais-Finland, where a case of cheating had to be dealt with. The accused arrived in the courtroom without an assistant, to which he would have been entitled according to the Military Procedure Act.
“Nobody has told me about the possibility of a free lawyer,” the accused told the judge, who asked why he had come without an assistant. The prosecutor also hesitated and stated that answering the charges is easier when the defendant has a lawyer to help him.
In general, the more serious the crime, the more likely the accused will have an assistant, but this is not always the case.
“It is not very rare that the assistant intervenes during the preliminary investigation phase, and from time to time it is still the case at the start of the trial,” says the district judge Katja Mäki From the district court of Varsinais-Finland.
In the case of Turku, the trial for the abuse of a superior position was moved to the future. The courts are overcrowded, so you can easily have to wait months for a new hearing.
The situation causes trouble and costs. For example, the interested party and possible witnesses have to be paid a fee in any case. Additional work is caused for judges, prosecutors, secretaries and bailiffs.
Why situations arise where the accused enters the hall without an assistant?
“It probably hasn’t become concrete for many in the preliminary investigation and interrogations that an assistant is needed. Going to an interview can be a stressful situation for many reasons, and it can be difficult to internalize the need for an assistant at that stage or to assess it realistically at all,” says Mäki.
He reminds that in the preliminary investigation, the authorities have an obligation to inform the party concerned of the right to use an assistant, and of his right to free legal aid and an assistant.
Usually, during the preliminary investigation, i.e. already during the interrogations, the suspect has a defense attorney, which the police also urges him to get. When the accused receives a summons, they are also advised to get a defense attorney.
Sometimes a person can still choose not to hire a defense attorney. It is a matter of right, not duty.
One big reason is the fear of heavy expenses. For example, the defender’s fee is paid from state funds, but if the court finds the suspect guilty of a crime, he is obliged to pay the fee back to the state if he does not meet the financial conditions for receiving legal aid.
According to Mäki, however, it is often the case that even though the suspect has gone through the preliminary investigation without an assistant, he eventually has one when he comes to the courtroom.
When then can you enter the gym without an assistant?
In simple cases, such as in cases of drunk driving and pinching type things, says Mäki. Sometimes also, for example, in restraining orders.
“Such a case could be, for example, that it is not a legally complicated matter, and that the perpetrator has already acknowledged.”
Helsinki district court judge Juha Hartikainen says the same thing: it is not uncommon for the accused to have no counsel. But the more serious the matter, the more often there is an assistant.
“The protection of justice point of view, the court can also order it if you haven’t been smart enough to get it yourself. Sometimes it also happens that the accused comes without an assistant. Then it can be stated that the matter is so serious that an assistant must be obtained or the court orders it,” he says.
“The judge always has to think about the legal security of the accused and whether he can manage his case so that it can be processed. A defender can always be appointed, the law has its own requirements for that.”
According to the law, everyone has the right to take care of their own defense. On the other hand, even if a person is imprisoned, for example, he automatically has a defender. If you are convicted, you may have to pay the costs of your assistant, but on the other hand, the costs of those found to be indigent can be reimbursed by the state.
Hartikainen says that it is always better to take an assistant if it is possible. But if you can coolly deal with your own case and legal protection is not compromised, then you can do without.
#Lawsuits #told #conscript #leader #possibility #lawyer #worth #court #assistant
