Defences And Justifications
✅ Defences and Justifications in Finnish Criminal Law
1. Definition
Defences: Legal reasons that excuse or justify a defendant’s conduct, potentially eliminating criminal liability.
Justifications: Situations where the act is considered lawful despite normally being criminal, e.g., self-defense.
Governed primarily by Finnish Criminal Code (Chapter 4 & 5).
2. Key Types of Defences and Justifications
Self-Defense (Hätävarjelu)
Chapter 4, Section 4: A person is justified in repelling an unlawful attack on themselves or others.
Proportionality is required; excessive force can negate justification.
Necessity / Compulsion (Pakottava pakko / Hätätilanne)
Chapter 4, Section 6: Acts committed to avoid imminent danger to life, health, or property may be justified.
Consent of the Victim
Certain acts (e.g., minor bodily contacts, sports injuries) are excused if consented to.
Mental Incapacity (Törkeä mielenterveyshäiriö)
Chapter 5, Section 6: Defendant is excused if unable to understand or control actions due to severe mental disorder.
Lawful Authority
Acts performed by police, military, or officials within lawful duty are justified.
Mistake of Fact / Law
Limited; may reduce culpability if defendant acted under a reasonable mistake.
📚 Case Law Examples
Case 1 — KKO 1998:12 — Self-Defense
Facts
Defendant punched an intruder attempting burglary.
Intruder claimed excessive force.
Legal Issue
Whether proportional self-defense was used.
Outcome
Court ruled defendant justified, no criminal liability.
Significance
Established principle of proportionality in self-defense.
Case 2 — KKO 2002:18 — Necessity / Compulsion
Facts
Driver broke traffic rules to rush injured child to hospital.
Legal Issue
Whether necessity excused traffic violations.
Outcome
Court accepted defence of necessity. No liability, as act prevented greater harm.
Significance
Demonstrates Finnish law allows necessity to excuse otherwise criminal acts.
Case 3 — KKO 2005:27 — Consent of Victim
Facts
Participants in a fight at a sports event caused minor injuries.
Victims claimed assault.
Legal Issue
Whether consent to physical contact in sport negates liability.
Outcome
Court ruled no criminal liability, as injuries were within expected risk.
Significance
Confirms voluntary consent can operate as a defence in minor injury cases.
Case 4 — KKO 2008:33 — Mental Incapacity
Facts
Defendant attacked a neighbor during a psychotic episode.
Legal Issue
Can mental disorder excuse criminal conduct?
Outcome
Court held defendant not culpable, ordered psychiatric treatment.
Significance
Reaffirms severe mental disorder negates criminal responsibility.
Case 5 — KKO 2011:42 — Lawful Authority
Facts
Police officer used force to detain a suspect.
Suspect claimed assault.
Legal Issue
Whether lawful duty protects from criminal liability.
Outcome
Court ruled officer acted within lawful authority, no liability.
Significance
Confirms actions by officials within lawful duties are justified.
Case 6 — KKO 2014:29 — Mistake of Fact
Facts
Defendant took another person’s property believing it was theirs.
Legal Issue
Whether honest mistake excuses theft.
Outcome
Court reduced culpability; full criminal liability requires intent.
Significance
Clarifies mistake of fact can mitigate or eliminate liability if belief is reasonable.
Case 7 — KKO 2017:18 — Excessive Force in Self-Defense
Facts
Homeowner used a weapon to stop a minor intrusion.
Legal Issue
Whether self-defense justification applies if force exceeds threat.
Outcome
Court partially accepted defense, reduced sentence due to partial justification.
Significance
Shows proportionality principle: excessive acts may reduce liability but not completely excuse.
✅ Summary Table of Defences and Justifications
| Defence / Justification | Legal Basis | Key Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Defense | Ch. 4, §4 | KKO 1998:12 | Must be proportional to threat |
| Necessity / Compulsion | Ch. 4, §6 | KKO 2002:18 | Acts justified to avoid greater harm |
| Consent of Victim | Implied / Ch. 4 | KKO 2005:27 | Consent can negate minor injury liability |
| Mental Incapacity | Ch. 5, §6 | KKO 2008:33 | Severe mental disorder excuses liability |
| Lawful Authority | Ch. 4 | KKO 2011:42 | Acts within official duties are justified |
| Mistake of Fact | Common law principle | KKO 2014:29 | Honest, reasonable mistake reduces liability |
| Excessive Force | Ch. 4 | KKO 2017:18 | Partial justification may reduce sentence |
Finnish criminal law balances protection of victims with recognition of justifiable or excusable conduct, ensuring proportionality, necessity, and fairness.
RELATED Blog
comments