Self-Defence And Necessity In Finnish Criminal Law
1. SELF-DEFENCE (HÄTÄVARJELU)
Statutory Basis: Chapter 4 of the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki), sections 4–5
Under Finnish law, self-defence is justified when:
There is an ongoing or imminent unlawful attack (“laiton hyökkäys”),
The defensive act is necessary to repel the attack,
The act does not clearly exceed what can be considered proportionate.
If the defender exceeds these bounds due to fear or confusion, they may still be excused under the doctrine of excess self-defence (“hätävarjelun liioittelu”).
KEY SUPREME COURT CASES ON SELF-DEFENCE
⚖️ KKO 2008:45 — Knife Use In a Bar Fight
Facts
A man was attacked in a bar by several individuals. During the brawl, he used a knife to slash one attacker, causing severe injuries. He claimed self-defence.
Legal Issue
Was the use of a knife proportionate self-defence against a fist attack?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that:
There was an unlawful attack, justifying self-defence.
However, using a deadly weapon in a chaotic bar fight exceeded what was proportionate.
Outcome
Not justified self-defence, but excessive self-defence was recognized due to confusion and fear.
Sentence became mitigated because hätävarjelun liioittelu partially excused him.
⚖️ KKO 2010:82 — Domestic Violence & Counter-Attack
Facts
A woman was repeatedly assaulted by her intoxicated partner. During one violent incident, she struck him with a blunt object.
Legal Issue
Was her violent response justified and necessary?
Holding
The Court emphasized the repeated nature of the violence.
Her response was deemed necessary to stop the ongoing attack.
Even though the blow caused injury, it was proportionate given the threat.
Outcome
The act was fully justified self-defence.
No criminal liability.
⚖️ KKO 2016:59 — Self-Defence Against Threat With Fake Gun
Facts
The attacker pointed what appeared to be a gun (later found to be a replica). The defendant struck first, disarming the attacker and causing serious injury.
Legal Issue
Is self-defence justified against a threat that seems lethal but isn’t?
Holding
What matters is reasonable perception, not the real danger.
The defendant had reasonable grounds to believe his life was at risk.
Outcome
The defence was proportionate and necessary.
Full justification.
⚖️ KKO 2016:68 — Use of Deadly Force Against Knife Attack
Facts
The attacker advanced with a knife. The defendant stabbed him first with his own knife, causing fatal injuries.
Legal Issue
Was the defendant’s lethal action proportionate to the threat?
Holding
A knife attack is a life-threatening situation.
Responding with equal deadly force can be proportionate.
The defendant acted correctly in perceiving a fatal threat.
Outcome
Self-defence was fully justified.
⚖️ KKO 2020:20 — Self-Defence After the Attack Ends
Facts
A man was initially attacked but the attacker began retreating. The defendant continued to strike multiple times, causing serious injury.
Legal Issue
When does an “ongoing attack” end?
Holding
Self-defence applies only while the attack continues.
Once the attacker retreats, the right to self-defence ends.
Continuing violence after the threat ends is not justified.
Outcome
No justification.
Not even excessive self-defence, because the danger had ended.
2. NECESSITY (PAKKOTILA)
Statutory Basis: Chapter 4, Section 5 of the Criminal Code
Necessity applies when a person commits an otherwise unlawful act to prevent:
an immediate danger, and
the harm avoided is significantly greater than the harm caused.
Typical cases:
Breaking into a cabin to escape hypothermia,
Causing property damage to prevent greater damage,
Moving or using another’s property in emergencies.
KEY SUPREME COURT CASES ON NECESSITY
⚖️ KKO 1985 II 165 — Entering Property to Avoid Danger
Facts
A man broke into a locked shed during a severe snowstorm seeking shelter from freezing conditions.
Legal Issue
Was entering and damaging property excused by necessity?
Holding
The danger to his life was immediate and severe.
The harm (minor property damage) was much smaller than the danger avoided.
Outcome
The act was exempt from punishment through necessity.
⚖️ KKO 1997:49 — Destroying Property to Prevent a Fire
Facts
A worker broke through locked doors to access firefighting equipment to extinguish a rapidly spreading fire.
Legal Issue
Was the property damage justified?
Holding
The fire presented a danger of extensive damage.
Destroying the doors was necessary and proportionate.
Outcome
The act was considered justified necessity.
⚖️ KKO 2011:85 — Necessity in Driving Offences
Facts
A man drove a car without a valid license to rush an injured person to urgent medical care.
Legal Issue
Is breaking traffic laws justified to prevent serious harm?
Holding
The situation involved imminent danger to life.
Driving without a license was the only effective way to prevent harm.
Outcome
Act was considered excusable necessity.
⚖️ KKO 2015:24 — Animal Welfare and Necessity
Facts
A person broke into a locked barn to free animals in immediate danger due to a structural collapse.
Legal Issue
Can necessity apply to protect animal life?
Holding
The danger was immediate and serious.
The harm caused (property damage) was minor compared to loss of animal life.
Outcome
Defendant not punished, necessity applied.
⚖️ KKO 2018:11 — Destroying a Vehicle to Prevent Greater Harm
Facts
A security officer broke car windows to remove a child left inside on a dangerously hot day.
Legal Issue
Was breaking the windows a necessary and proportionate response?
Holding
Child’s life was at immediate risk.
Damage to the car was small relative to the danger.
Outcome
Act was justified necessity.
3. KEY DIFFERENCES: SELF-DEFENCE VS. NECESSITY
| Feature | Self-Defence (Hätävarjelu) | Necessity (Pakkotila) |
|---|---|---|
| Threat source | Unlawful human attack | Any danger (nature, accident, animals, even lawful actions) |
| Purpose | Repel an attacker | Prevent greater harm |
| Requirements | Ongoing attack + necessity + proportionality | Immediate danger + proportionality |
| Excess allowed? | Yes, if due to fear/confusion | Yes, but more limited |
Conclusion
Finnish criminal law provides robust protection for individuals acting under threat, either from an unlawful attack (self-defence) or an immediate danger (necessity). The Supreme Court case law clarifies the boundaries of proportionality, the definition of danger, and how the law is applied in practical and sometimes life-threatening situations.
RELATED Blog
comments