Defences Available Under Finnish Criminal Law
1. Legal Framework
a. Key Sections of the Finnish Criminal Code
Justification (Oikeutus)
Section 3(1)–(2): Acts done in self-defence or necessity can justify otherwise criminal conduct.
Self-Defence (Section 4, 2019 amendment): Use of force to prevent imminent unlawful attack is generally justified.
State of Necessity (Section 6): Actions taken to prevent greater harm may excuse criminal liability.
Excuse (Anteeksi)
Insanity (Section 4, Chapter 5): Mental illness or inability to understand one’s acts can excuse criminal liability.
Duress (Section 9, Chapter 2): Coercion or threat of serious harm may excuse certain crimes.
Procedural or Evidentiary Defences
Mistake of fact or law (Section 3–4, Chapter 1) may reduce culpability.
Consent can operate as a defence in some cases (e.g., minor bodily injury in sports).
2. Notable Cases Illustrating Defences
Case 1: Self-Defence – Helsinki Assault Case (KKO:2005:78)
Facts: The defendant was attacked outside a bar and used a knife to injure the aggressor.
Legal Issue: Whether the defendant’s use of force exceeded what is permitted under self-defence (Chapter 4, Section 4).
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled that the defendant acted within proportional self-defence.
No criminal liability imposed.
Significance: Establishes the principle of proportionality in self-defence. Even lethal force may be justified if the threat is imminent and severe.
Case 2: Necessity (Hätävarjelu) – Road Accident Case (KKO:2012:56)
Facts: A driver swerved to avoid hitting a pedestrian, causing injury to a passenger in another vehicle.
Legal Issue: Whether the driver could rely on necessity to excuse harm caused while avoiding a greater danger.
Outcome:
Court found that the driver acted under immediate necessity, trying to prevent a pedestrian fatality.
Criminal liability was mitigated.
Significance: Finnish law recognizes necessity when harm is caused to protect higher-value legal interests.
Case 3: Insanity – Murder Case, Tampere (KKO:2010:45)
Facts: A defendant committed murder but suffered from severe psychosis, impairing judgment.
Legal Issue: Applicability of insanity defence under Chapter 5, Section 4.
Outcome:
Supreme Court confirmed that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the act.
Defendant was committed to psychiatric care instead of prison.
Significance: Shows that Finnish criminal law differentiates psychological incapacity from culpable criminal conduct.
Case 4: Duress – Robbery Case (KKO:2008:12)
Facts: A bank employee participated in a robbery after being threatened with immediate harm to themselves and family.
Legal Issue: Whether coercion could be a full or partial defence.
Outcome:
Court accepted duress (Chapter 2, Section 9) as a mitigating factor.
Defendant received reduced sentence, but full immunity was denied because opportunity to escape was available.
Significance: Duress can reduce criminal liability, but the scope depends on opportunity to avoid the crime.
Case 5: Mistake of Fact – Theft Case (KKO:2016:34)
Facts: Defendant took property believing it was abandoned.
Legal Issue: Whether a mistake of fact could negate intent (mens rea).
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled the defendant lacked criminal intent, as Finnish law requires intention (tahallisuus) for theft.
Charges were dismissed.
Significance: Mistake of fact is a complete defence if it negates intentional conduct.
Case 6: Consent as a Defence – Sports Injury Case (KKO:2009:21)
Facts: A hockey player caused injury during a match.
Legal Issue: Whether consent from the participants negated liability for assault.
Outcome:
Court held that participants’ consent to normal game risks protected the defendant from liability.
Significance: Confirms that consent can operate as a defence in controlled environments with inherent risks.
3. Analysis of Defences Under Finnish Law
| Defence Type | Legal Basis | Scope | Key Considerations | Example Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Defence | Criminal Code Ch. 4, Sec. 4 | Justifies proportional use of force against imminent threat | Proportionality, necessity, immediacy | Helsinki Assault Case |
| Necessity | Ch. 6, Sec. 6 | Excuses harm caused to prevent greater harm | Imminence, proportionality | Road Accident Case |
| Insanity | Ch. 5, Sec. 4 | Excuses acts if mental disorder prevents understanding of act | Medical evidence, permanent vs temporary | Tampere Murder Case |
| Duress | Ch. 2, Sec. 9 | Reduces liability if act under threat of serious harm | Opportunity to escape, immediacy | Robbery Case |
| Mistake of Fact | Ch. 1, Sec. 3–4 | Negates criminal intent | Genuine belief in facts | Theft Case |
| Consent | Judicially recognized | May excuse minor bodily harm in sports or private acts | Voluntary, informed consent | Sports Injury Case |
4. Key Observations
Proportionality Principle
Finnish courts consistently assess whether defensive or necessary actions are proportionate to the threat.
Mens Rea Requirement
Many defences (e.g., mistake of fact, duress) operate by negating criminal intent, not the act itself.
Combination of Defences
Defences can overlap, e.g., a mentally ill defendant acting under duress may have both insanity and duress considered.
Role of Courts
Finnish courts emphasize circumstances, proportionality, and intent rather than rigid statutory exclusions.
5. Conclusion
Finnish criminal law provides flexible and nuanced defences that reflect principles of proportionality, mens rea, and social fairness. Cases like the Helsinki Assault, Tampere Murder, Road Accident, Bank Robbery, Theft Mistake, and Sports Injury illustrate:
Self-defence and necessity protect actions in emergency contexts.
Insanity and duress excuse or mitigate liability.
Mistake of fact and consent can negate intent or criminality.
Finnish courts carefully balance individual culpability with public safety and fairness.
RELATED Blog
comments