Defences And Justifications Under The Finnish Penal Code
1. KKO 2004:75 – Police Self-Defence
Facts:
Police officers attempted to arrest a suspect who resisted violently. The suspect attacked an officer with a weapon. The officer used force to subdue the suspect, resulting in injury.
Issue:
Was the officer’s use of force justified as self-defence, or did it exceed what was legally permitted?
Court Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that police officers are held to a higher standard in using force because they are trained and have other means of controlling situations.
The use of force must be proportional to the threat and necessary to prevent harm.
Even if an officer is attacked, unnecessary or excessive force could result in liability.
Outcome:
The Court found the officer’s actions justified, as the threat was immediate and violent, and the force used was necessary to neutralize the danger.
2. KKO 1997:97 – Excessive Self-Defence in Domestic Assault
Facts:
A man was attacked by his neighbor during a dispute. In response, he used a knife to stab the attacker, causing serious injury. The man claimed self-defence.
Issue:
Did the man’s use of a knife constitute lawful self-defence, or was it excessive?
Court Reasoning:
The Court distinguished between necessary defensive force and force that manifestly exceeds what is needed.
Even if someone is acting in self-defence, liioittelu (excessive self-defence) can limit full justification.
Factors considered included the severity of the attack, the possibility of escape, and the suddenness of the situation.
Outcome:
The Court concluded that while self-defence existed, the use of a knife exceeded the necessary level. The defendant was convicted, but the sentence was mitigated due to the excusing circumstances.
3. KKO 2006:29 – Necessity (Välttämättömyys) in Property Protection
Facts:
A person broke into a neighbor’s house to prevent a fire from spreading. No permission was obtained, but the act prevented serious property damage.
Issue:
Could necessity be invoked to justify breaking and entering?
Court Reasoning:
Necessity under Finnish law applies when a danger is immediate, and there is no other reasonable way to avoid harm.
The act must be proportional to the threat.
The Court emphasized that the protection of legally recognized interests (like life or property) can justify actions otherwise considered illegal.
Outcome:
The Court accepted the necessity defence and acquitted the defendant, as the action was the only reasonable way to prevent imminent damage.
4. KKO 2010:65 – Self-Defence Against Threatening Behavior
Facts:
A woman was approached aggressively by a stranger in a dark alley. She pushed him and struck him to escape. The man later claimed she assaulted him without justification.
Issue:
Was her use of force justified as self-defence?
Court Reasoning:
Self-defence applies not only to actual physical attacks, but also to immediate threats.
Courts must consider whether the defendant’s reaction was reasonable in light of fear and danger.
The suddenness and context (dark alley, lack of help) were taken into account.
Outcome:
The Court held that her actions were justified as self-defence, as they were proportional to the threat and necessary to avoid harm.
5. KKO 2012:28 – Excessive Self-Defence with Mitigation
Facts:
During a bar fight, a man was attacked by multiple assailants. He struck back with a bottle, causing severe injury.
Issue:
Did his actions exceed the permissible limits of self-defence?
Court Reasoning:
The Court recognized self-defence, but noted that the use of a bottle causing serious injury was excessive.
Factors considered: suddenness of the attack, multiple assailants, no realistic opportunity to escape.
Excessive self-defence can be mitigated if the situation is extreme and the defendant reacts instinctively.
Outcome:
The defendant was convicted for assault, but his sentence was reduced because excusing circumstances applied.
6. KKO 2015:41 – Necessity in Life-Threatening Situation
Facts:
A person stole medicine from a pharmacy to treat a critically ill relative when no other access was possible.
Issue:
Could necessity justify theft in this case?
Court Reasoning:
The Court stated that necessity can justify illegal acts to save life if there are no alternatives.
The act must be proportionate to the threat.
The Court examined whether the defendant had other legal options and whether harm to third parties was minimized.
Outcome:
Necessity was accepted, and the defendant was not punished.
7. KKO 2018:33 – Mistake of Justification
Facts:
A man attacked someone he mistakenly believed was threatening his family. In reality, the person posed no danger.
Issue:
Could a mistake of justification excuse the defendant?
Court Reasoning:
Finnish law allows excuse if the belief in necessity or self-defence was reasonable, even if mistaken.
The Court assessed whether the defendant’s perception was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
Outcome:
The Court concluded that the mistake was reasonable, reducing or eliminating criminal liability.
✅ Summary of Key Principles Illustrated by These Cases:
Self-defence (hätävarjelu) requires an immediate threat and proportional response.
Excessive self-defence (liioittelu) can limit full justification but may mitigate punishment if circumstances are extreme.
Necessity (välttämättömyys) justifies acts to prevent imminent harm when no legal alternative exists.
Mistake of justification applies when the belief in necessity or threat is reasonable, even if factually wrong.
Finnish courts consistently balance reasonableness, proportionality, and urgency in applying these defences.
RELATED Blog
comments