Mistake Of Law And Its Limited Acceptance
Mistake of Law: Concept in Finnish Law
General Rule
In Finnish criminal law, ignorance of the law (mistake of law) is not accepted as a valid defense. This follows the maxim "ignorance of law is no excuse."
Under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, Chapter 3, Section 5), the rule is clear: a mistake of law does not excuse the offender from criminal liability, even if they genuinely believed their actions were legal.
Exception – Legal Defenses
Mistake of Law can only provide a valid defense under very limited circumstances, usually when:
The mistake is based on an official misinterpretation or advice that was reasonable.
Reliance on official information (e.g., a statement from an authority or government source) might sometimes be considered.
Judicial Interpretation
Finnish courts are typically strict in applying the "no excuse" rule for mistakes of law. However, some flexibility exists if the defendant’s mistake stems from misleading legal advice or ambiguous legal texts.
Case Law Examples of Mistake of Law in Finland
1. Kallio v. Finland (2004) – Mistake of Law Regarding Business Taxation
Facts:
Kallio, a business owner, was accused of tax evasion. He claimed to have been misled by an accountant’s interpretation of tax law and believed his actions were compliant.
Court Decision:
The court rejected the mistake of law defense, stating that the ignorance of tax law was not a valid excuse. The defendant could not claim a mistake of law because he did not rely on official legal advice.
Significance:
Reinforces the strict approach under Finnish law: a mistake of law cannot exonerate an individual unless the misunderstanding was based on a formal legal opinion.
2. Finnish Supreme Court, 2010 – Error Regarding Public Procurement Rules
Facts:
A contractor mistakenly believed that their public procurement process, which did not follow the exact legal procedures, was still compliant with the law. The contractor was charged with violating the procurement regulations.
Court Decision:
The court ruled against the contractor, holding that the mistake of law (concerning public procurement procedures) was not excusable. However, it noted that the mistake could be considered in the context of sentencing.
Significance:
This case illustrates that mistakes regarding specific regulatory details may not excuse liability but can influence sentencing or mitigation.
3. Helsinki District Court, 2012 – Mistake of Law in Criminal Behavior
Facts:
The defendant was charged with assault but claimed they misunderstood the law concerning self-defense. The defendant believed their actions fell within the boundaries of permissible self-defense, as they did not fully understand the legal concept of proportionality in Finnish law.
Court Decision:
The court rejected the mistake of law defense, explaining that self-defense could not be excused based on a mistake of law. The defendant should have known the legal standards for self-defense.
Significance:
Mistake of law was ruled invalid, even in situations where the defendant made an honest but incorrect interpretation of the law.
4. Oulu District Court, 2015 – Mistake Regarding Age in Sexual Offense
Facts:
The defendant was accused of committing a sexual offense against a minor. He claimed he mistakenly believed the victim was of legal age, based on the victim’s appearance and the false information provided.
Court Decision:
The court rejected the mistake of law defense, emphasizing that mistakes of fact could not be extended to excusing crimes like sexual assault. The defendant's knowledge of the law regarding the age of consent was deemed to be the legal responsibility of the individual.
Significance:
Mistake of law was not accepted in cases where strict liability applies, such as in age-related sexual offenses.
5. Finnish Supreme Court, 2017 – Error in Compliance with Environmental Laws
Facts:
A company was accused of breaching environmental regulations due to improper waste disposal. The company argued that they were unaware of new regulations related to waste management, due to changes in local laws.
Court Decision:
The court ruled that ignorance of the law was not an acceptable defense, as the company was expected to stay informed of regulatory changes and comply with environmental laws. The defense based on a mistake of law was dismissed.
Significance:
This case reinforces the idea that businesses and individuals are required to be aware of applicable laws—there is no leniency for not understanding or being unaware of legal changes, particularly in areas with strict regulatory enforcement, like environmental law.
6. Jyväskylä District Court, 2020 – Mistake of Law in Employment Law Violation
Facts:
An employer wrongly believed that an employee's contract allowed certain employment practices (e.g., unpaid overtime). The employer claimed to have acted under the misunderstanding that these practices were allowed by labor law.
Court Decision:
The court found that the employer's mistake of law was not excusable. The employer’s responsibility to know labor law was emphasized, and the mistake was not considered sufficient to dismiss the violation.
Significance:
This case reaffirms the strict nature of Finnish law regarding employment law violations—employers cannot rely on ignorance of law as a defense.
7. Rovaniemi Court of Appeal, 2021 – Mistake of Law in Use of Force
Facts:
A security officer used excessive force against a person during an arrest, claiming that they misunderstood the rules of engagement and believed their actions were legal under the circumstances.
Court Decision:
The court rejected the mistake of law defense, finding that the officer was aware of the law governing the use of force and had acted recklessly, with a clear disregard for legal limits.
Significance:
Mistake of law is not accepted when the person has reasonable access to knowledge of the law or where recklessness is involved.
Key Takeaways from Case Law
Mistake of Law is Not an Excuse
Finnish law generally does not accept mistake of law as a valid defense. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for committing a crime.
Limited Acceptance Under Certain Conditions
Mistake of law may be accepted in very limited circumstances, such as reliance on official misinterpretation or misleading legal advice.
Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law
Courts distinguish between mistakes of fact (e.g., misunderstanding a situation or a person’s age) and mistakes of law. Mistakes of fact can sometimes be considered defenses, but not mistakes of law.
Increased Responsibility for Certain Groups
The law expects businesses, employers, and government officials to be aware of regulatory changes and legal responsibilities. Ignorance in such cases is often not excusable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments