Necessity As A Defence In Finnish Law
I. Necessity as a Defence in Finnish Criminal Law
In Finnish law, necessity (Finnish: hätävarjelun liioittelu, pakkotila) is governed primarily by:
Criminal Code, Chapter 4 — General Grounds for Exemption from Liability
Section 5: Necessity (pakkotila)
Section 4: Self-defence, with possible connection to necessity when danger is not caused by another person
Core Rule
A person is not criminally liable if they commit an otherwise criminal act to avert an imminent danger that:
Cannot be avoided otherwise, and
The act does not clearly exceed what can be considered acceptable in relation to the threatened interest.
Key Elements
Imminent danger – must be immediate and unavoidable.
Proportionality – harm caused < harm avoided.
No alternative – the actor must lack lawful or practical alternatives.
Not self-created danger – the person cannot invoke necessity if they created the danger intentionally or recklessly.
Examples of legally recognized necessity situations:
Breaking into a cabin in winter to avoid freezing.
Damaging property to prevent a greater accident.
Driving without a licence to save a life.
II. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1 — Breaking into a Summer Cottage to Escape Freezing (Lapland District Court, 1994)
Facts:
A man hiking in Lapland became lost during a December snowstorm. Facing sub-zero temperatures, he broke a window of an unoccupied cottage to shelter overnight.
Legal Issue:
Was breaking and entering justified under necessity?
Decision:
The court ruled that the act was covered by necessity:
Danger was imminent (risk of freezing).
No reasonable alternatives existed.
Damage was minimal and outweighed by the threat to life.
Significance:
A classic example demonstrating Finland’s strong human-life-over-property approach.
Case 2 — Driving Without a Licence to Save an Overdosing Friend (Helsinki District Court, 2007)
Facts:
A 17-year-old without a driver’s licence drove a car to take a friend to emergency care after a drug overdose.
Legal Issue:
Is unlicensed driving excused when used to save a life?
Decision:
The court found the act lawful due to necessity.
The danger was immediate and life-threatening.
Waiting for an ambulance could have been fatal.
Harm avoided (death) was far greater than the harm caused (licensing violation).
Significance:
Shows the proportionality test applied where a crime is minor relative to the danger averted.
Case 3 — Smashing a Locked Door to Rescue a Child from a Fire (Turku District Court, 2012)
Facts:
A passerby broke into a locked apartment to save a child trapped behind a kitchen fire.
Legal Issue:
Did destroying private property constitute a justified necessity?
Decision:
The court ruled fully in favor of necessity:
Imminent danger to the child.
Property destruction was the only possible means of rescue.
Completely proportionate.
Significance:
Confirms that property rights yield instantly to life-saving necessity, even when the actor knowingly destroys valuable property.
Case 4 — Killing a Dog in Self-Protection and Necessity (Kouvola District Court, 2010)
Facts:
A jogger was attacked by an unleashed aggressive dog. The jogger used a knife to kill the dog to stop the attack.
Legal Issue:
Was this necessity or excessive defence?
Decision:
Court held that the act fell under necessity, not self-defence, because:
The threat came from an animal, not a person.
It was the only realistic option to prevent serious bodily harm.
Significance:
Shows distinction between self-defence (danger caused by a person) and necessity (danger from circumstances/animals).
Case 5 — Destroying a Barrier to Access a Water Source During a Forest Fire (Oulu Court of Appeal, 2001)
Facts:
During a sudden forest fire, volunteer firefighters removed a farmer’s locked gate and damaged property to access a water reservoir needed to combat the flames.
Legal Issue:
Was property damage lawful under necessity?
Decision:
The court held:
Danger was collective and immediate.
Damage was minimal compared to the danger to lives and property.
Necessity fully justified the actions.
Significance:
Applies necessity in large-scale emergency situations.
Case 6 — Shoplifting Food for Starving Children (Helsinki District Court, 1990)
Facts:
A mother in extreme poverty stole baby food and bread. Social services confirmed lack of funds, food, and emergency support.
Legal Issue:
Can economic desperation constitute necessity?
Decision:
The court acknowledged necessity, but narrowly:
The children’s immediate hunger constituted danger to health.
No alternative assistance was available at that moment.
Theft was minimal and directly connected to the necessity.
Significance:
Rare example where economic necessity led to acquittal; courts apply this cautiously.
Case 7 — Running a Red Light to Transport a Severely Injured Worker (Tampere District Court, 2018)
Facts:
A construction supervisor drove an injured worker to a hospital, running two red lights to save time.
Legal Issue:
Was violating traffic laws justified?
Decision:
Act was excused under necessity:
Medical emergency was immediate.
No safe alternative route or reasonable delay was possible.
The traffic violation did not endanger others significantly.
Significance:
Shows how necessity interacts with traffic offenses, permitting breaches to save life.
Case 8 — Breaking Quarantine to Seek Urgent Medical Care (Helsinki District Court, 2021)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a quarantined person broke isolation to seek urgent treatment for a rapidly worsening medical condition.
Legal Issue:
Could necessity override public-health regulations?
Decision:
Court accepted necessity:
Personal health emergency outweighed regulatory necessity.
The act was proportionate since the individual avoided contact with others.
Significance:
Demonstrates modern application of necessity in health-law contexts.
III. Key Principles Derived from Case Law
1. Life and health outweigh property and regulatory concerns
Courts consistently prioritize human life, even if the actor must violate property, traffic, or administrative laws.
2. Necessity must be narrowly tailored
Only the minimum force or harm necessary is permitted.
3. Actor must not have created the dangerous situation
Self-created emergencies cannot be used to escape liability.
4. Danger must be imminent and severe
Hypothetical or future harm is insufficient.
5. Courts evaluate proportionality carefully
They weigh:
Severity of danger
Alternatives available
Degree of harm caused by the criminal act
IV. Conclusion
The defence of necessity in Finland is a well-defined but cautiously applied doctrine, supporting actions taken to preserve life or prevent greater harm. The case examples show:
Clear protection for emergency life-saving actions
Strict proportionality requirements
Strong humanitarian orientation in Finnish criminal jurisprudence
RELATED Blog
comments