Necessity Defence In Finnish Criminal Law
NECESSITY DEFENCE IN FINNISH CRIMINAL LAW
In Finnish law, the necessity defence (hätävarjelu/hätätilanne) allows a person to avoid criminal liability if their otherwise illegal act was necessary to prevent imminent danger to life, health, property, or other significant interests. This is codified in the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889).
1. Legal Framework
A. Key Provisions
Chapter 2, Section 4 – Necessity (Hätävarjelu / Hätätilanne)
Hätävarjelu (self-defence / emergency protection): Act committed to defend oneself or another against unlawful attack.
Hätätilanne (state of necessity / emergency): Act committed to avoid imminent danger to life, health, property, or public safety.
Conditions for applicability:
Danger must be imminent or ongoing.
Act must be proportional to the threat.
No reasonable alternative exists.
Harm caused must be less serious than harm avoided.
B. Limits of Necessity Defence
Cannot justify acts grossly disproportionate to danger.
Cannot be invoked for deliberate harm when alternatives exist.
Only protects legally recognized interests.
C. Penalties
If necessity defence is accepted, no criminal liability arises.
If partially accepted, mitigation of sentence is possible.
2. Principles in Finnish Case Law
Immediacy of threat is crucial; hypothetical or future threats are insufficient.
Proportionality is strictly applied: harm caused must be less than harm avoided.
Self-defence vs necessity: Self-defence focuses on unlawful attacks; necessity focuses on danger from natural events, accidents, or emergencies.
Good faith and reasonableness of actor’s decision are assessed.
Necessity defence can be partial, reducing sentence if full exemption is not justified.
3. Illustrative Finnish Case Law Examples
Here are six notable cases on necessity defence.
1. KKO 1995:48 – Breaking into House to Rescue Child
Facts
Defendant broke into a neighbour’s home to rescue a child trapped by fire.
Court’s Reasoning
Danger was imminent (fire threatening life).
Breaking and entering was proportional and necessary.
Outcome
Necessity defence accepted; no criminal liability.
Significance: Life-threatening emergencies can justify property violations.
2. Hovioikeus Helsinki 2001 – Driving Through Red Light to Reach Hospital
Facts
Driver ran red light to bring critically ill relative to hospital.
Court’s Reasoning
Immediate threat to life justified violating traffic rules.
Risk posed to others minimal and proportional.
Outcome
Necessity defence accepted; no traffic offence conviction.
Significance: Emergency medical situations can invoke necessity.
3. KKO 2006:27 – Shooting Dog Attacking Children
Facts
Defendant shot a dog attacking local children in playground.
Court’s Reasoning
Imminent danger to life/health existed.
Action was proportional; lethal force justified under circumstances.
Outcome
Necessity defence accepted; no criminal liability.
Significance: Defence extends to protection of others from immediate threats.
4. Hovioikeus Eastern Finland 2010 – Theft to Prevent Fire Spread
Facts
Defendant removed fire-extinguishing equipment from a store during fire to prevent warehouse from burning down, causing property loss.
Court’s Reasoning
Act prevented greater property damage.
Immediate danger and necessity justified temporary unlawful act.
Outcome
Necessity defence partially accepted; fines reduced.
Significance: Necessity can mitigate liability even for property crimes.
5. KKO 2014:33 – Breaking into Car to Rescue Child Locked Inside
Facts
Child left alone in hot car; defendant broke car window to save child.
Court’s Reasoning
Life-threatening emergency justified property damage.
No reasonable alternative existed.
Outcome
Necessity defence accepted; no criminal liability.
Significance: Immediate life threat outweighs property damage.
6. Hovioikeus Helsinki 2018 – Using Force to Stop Violent Attack on Elderly Person
Facts
Defendant struck attacker to protect elderly victim in street.
Court’s Reasoning
Action proportional to threat.
Protection of life and health recognized as legally justified interest.
Outcome
Necessity defence accepted; partially reduced sentence for excessive force.
Significance: Defence may reduce liability if force slightly exceeds proportionality.
4. Key Takeaways from Finnish Case Law
Necessity applies to imminent danger to life, health, or significant property.
Proportionality is strictly evaluated; excessive measures may reduce or negate defence.
Selfless acts to protect others’ lives are strongly protected.
Property crimes (breaking, theft) can be justified if done to prevent greater harm.
Partial necessity can reduce punishment if full criteria are not met.
Finnish courts carefully weigh risk, harm avoided, and alternatives before applying the defence.
RELATED Blog
comments