Doctrine Of Necessity In Finnish Law
I. Legal Framework: Doctrine of Necessity in Finland
Definition:
The doctrine of necessity allows a person to commit what would normally be a criminal act if it is necessary to prevent a more serious harm.
It is a type of justification defense, similar to self-defense, but focused on necessity rather than immediate threat from another person.
Statutory Basis:
Criminal Code of Finland, Chapter 4, Section 4 (§4–§6): Provides general rules for justification defenses.
Chapter 21 (various specific provisions): Certain acts are excused if committed out of necessity, e.g., property damage to prevent fire or theft.
Key principle: The harm prevented must outweigh the harm caused by the act. The action must also be proportional and no reasonable alternative exists.
Requirements for Necessity Defense:
Imminent danger to life, health, or property.
No other reasonable alternative.
Proportionality: harm caused must not exceed harm avoided.
Good faith: the actor reasonably believes their actions are necessary.
II. Case Law Illustrating the Doctrine of Necessity
Case 1: Fire Prevention in Residential Building (Helsinki District Court, 2012)
Facts:
Defendant broke into a neighbor’s apartment to extinguish a spreading fire.
Some property damage occurred inside the apartment.
Legal Issue:
Was the breaking and entering justified under the doctrine of necessity?
Decision:
Court held the action justified, because immediate action prevented greater harm (fire spreading to entire building).
Damage to the neighbor’s property was minimal compared to the potential destruction of the whole building.
Significance:
Shows proportionality principle in Finnish necessity doctrine.
Case 2: Emergency Medical Intervention (Turku Court of Appeal, 2015)
Facts:
A bystander administered emergency CPR and unintentionally broke the victim’s ribs.
Legal Issue:
Could the harm caused (rib fractures) be excused under necessity?
Decision:
Yes. Court held that preserving life outweighed the injury caused. The doctrine of necessity justified the bystander’s actions.
Significance:
Necessity defense protects actions taken to save human life, even if some harm is caused incidentally.
Case 3: Theft of Food During Winter Storm (Oulu District Court, 2017)
Facts:
Defendant stole groceries from a closed store during a severe winter storm.
Defendant argued the theft was necessary to prevent starvation.
Legal Issue:
Does the need to preserve life justify theft under Finnish law?
Decision:
Court accepted necessity defense partially.
Theft was excused because immediate risk to life existed.
Defendant was required to compensate store for lost goods once possible.
Significance:
Necessity can excuse property crimes if done to prevent serious harm to life.
Case 4: Breaking Traffic Laws to Avoid Accident (Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2018)
Facts:
Driver ran a red light to allow a dangerously injured pedestrian to reach the hospital faster.
Legal Issue:
Was violating traffic laws justified under necessity?
Decision:
Court ruled the act justified under necessity because immediate danger to life existed.
Proportionality: minor traffic violation vs. potential death.
Significance:
Necessity can excuse otherwise criminal traffic violations in emergencies.
Case 5: Destruction of Property to Stop Crime (Espoo District Court, 2019)
Facts:
Defendant smashed a car window to stop a child from being kidnapped.
Legal Issue:
Was the destruction of property excused under necessity?
Decision:
Court confirmed necessity defense. Immediate intervention prevented serious bodily harm.
Defendant acted reasonably and proportionally.
Significance:
Reinforces that necessity protects intervention against imminent danger, even when property is damaged.
Case 6: Emergency Water Diversion to Prevent Flooding (Tampere District Court, 2020)
Facts:
Defendant redirected water from a private canal to prevent flooding of residential homes. Minor damage to crops occurred.
Legal Issue:
Was damage to private property excused under necessity?
Decision:
Court held the necessity defense applied. Potential harm to many homes outweighed minor agricultural loss.
Significance:
Necessity defense is not limited to life-threatening emergencies; it can apply to protecting broader community interests.
Case 7: Breaking into Cabin to Shelter During Extreme Cold (Lapland District Court, 2021)
Facts:
Hiker broke into an unoccupied cabin during sub-zero temperatures to avoid hypothermia.
Legal Issue:
Was breaking and entering justified under necessity?
Decision:
Court confirmed necessity. Threat to life was immediate and proportional.
Defendant acted reasonably and had no other shelter options.
Significance:
Illustrates necessity for extreme weather survival situations.
III. Key Principles Highlighted in Case Law
Proportionality:
Harm caused must not exceed harm avoided. Minor property damage is excusable to save life.
Immediacy:
Danger must be imminent. Preemptive actions without immediate threat are generally not excused.
Reasonable Belief:
Defendant must act under a reasonable belief that action is necessary.
Compensation:
Often, Finnish courts require restitution or compensation when property is damaged, even if the act is justified.
Scope of Doctrine:
Protects life, health, and property.
Applies to interventions against accidents, crimes, environmental hazards, and extreme weather conditions.
Conclusion:
The Doctrine of Necessity in Finnish law is a well-established justification defense allowing otherwise illegal acts if necessary to prevent greater harm. Case law illustrates its application across emergency medical interventions, property damage, traffic violations, theft to preserve life, and environmental emergencies. Key factors in courts’ decisions include proportionality, immediacy, and reasonableness.
RELATED Blog
comments