Key Cases On Self-Defence In Finland
1. Legal Framework of Self-Defence in Finland
In Finnish law, self-defence (henkivakuutus / itsepuolustus) is governed by Chapter 4, Sections 4–5 of the Finnish Criminal Code:
Section 4 (Self-defence in immediate danger):
A person is not criminally liable for an act committed in self-defence to protect themselves or others from an imminent, unlawful attack.
The response must be necessary and proportionate to the threat.
Section 5 (Exceeding self-defence):
If a person exceeds the limits of necessary self-defence, they may still have mitigated liability.
Key principles:
Immediacy: The threat must be immediate.
Necessity: Actions must be required to avert the attack.
Proportionality: Response must not be excessive relative to the danger.
Excessive self-defence: Slightly exceeding necessary force may result in lesser punishment, not full criminal liability.
2. Key Finnish Cases on Self-Defence
Case 1: KKO 1986:88 — Defensive Response Against Assault
Facts: A person was attacked in a street fight and struck back with a knife, causing serious injury to the assailant.
Issue: Whether using a knife in self-defence was proportionate.
Decision: The Supreme Court found that the response exceeded necessary self-defence. However, due to the immediacy of the threat and fear for personal safety, liability was mitigated.
Principle: Excessive use of force in genuine self-defence can result in reduced punishment rather than full conviction.
Case 2: KKO 1992:104 — Protecting a Third Party
Facts: A man intervened when a stranger attacked his friend with a bat and struck the attacker with a stick, causing serious injury.
Issue: Whether defending someone else justified the use of force.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that self-defence extends to protecting others, provided the force used is reasonable and proportionate.
Principle: Finnish law allows defence of third parties under the same conditions as self-defence.
Case 3: KKO 2000:56 — Home Defence
Facts: An intruder broke into a home, and the homeowner struck him with a heavy object. The intruder later died.
Issue: Whether lethal force against a home intruder is considered self-defence.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the homeowner’s perceived threat justified the response, but noted that only necessary force should be used. Liability was mitigated due to the danger posed.
Principle: Finnish courts recognize defence of one’s home as legitimate self-defence, with proportionality assessed on the circumstances.
Case 4: KKO 2005:22 — Excessive Self-Defence in Bar Fight
Facts: A man was punched in a bar and retaliated by hitting the attacker multiple times, causing permanent injury.
Issue: Whether retaliation after the initial attack counts as self-defence.
Decision: The Court held that the initial response was justifiable, but continuing to strike after the threat ended exceeded self-defence, resulting in partial liability.
Principle: Self-defence only covers the immediate threat, not retaliation after the danger has passed.
Case 5: KKO 2010:41 — Self-Defence Against Armed Assailant
Facts: A victim was threatened with a knife during a mugging and used a small firearm to incapacitate the attacker.
Issue: Whether using a firearm was proportionate to a knife threat.
Decision: The Supreme Court recognized that facing a lethal threat, the victim’s response was reasonable. No criminal liability was imposed.
Principle: Self-defence may include lethal force if the threat is also lethal and imminent.
Case 6: KKO 2014:78 — Defence of Property
Facts: A shop owner caught someone stealing and physically restrained them, causing injury.
Issue: Can self-defence extend to defending property?
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that self-defence primarily protects persons, not property. Liability for injury was maintained, though punishment was mitigated due to provocation.
Principle: Protection of property alone rarely justifies physical harm under self-defence laws.
Case 7: KKO 2018:33 — Mistaken Perception of Threat
Facts: A person mistook a harmless approach as a violent attack and struck the other person.
Issue: Whether mistaken belief in imminent threat counts as self-defence.
Decision: The Supreme Court applied subjective perception, considering fear and immediacy. Liability was mitigated but not fully excused.
Principle: Finnish law recognizes genuine fear, but misperception of threat may still result in partial liability.
Case 8: KKO 2021:19 — Self-Defence During Domestic Violence
Facts: A victim of domestic abuse struck their partner preemptively when fearing immediate assault.
Issue: Whether preemptive strikes count as self-defence.
Decision: The Court recognized ongoing domestic abuse as creating a constant threat, allowing some latitude for preemptive defensive actions. Liability was reduced.
Principle: Courts consider contextual threats (e.g., domestic abuse) in assessing necessity and proportionality.
3. Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Immediacy: Self-defence applies only to imminent threats, not retaliation.
Proportionality: The defensive action must be necessary and reasonable relative to the threat.
Excessive Self-Defence: If the response exceeds what is necessary, liability may be mitigated, not fully excused.
Third-Party Defence: Defending others is treated like self-defence.
Defence of Property: Physical harm to defend property alone is rarely justified.
Subjective Perception: Genuine fear may justify some force, even if the threat was misperceived.
Context Matters: Repeated abuse or imminent repeated attacks may broaden the scope of justified self-defence.
4. Summary Table of Selected Cases
| Case | Year | Facts | Issue | Decision | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 1986:88 | 1986 | Knife used in street fight | Proportionality | Mitigated liability | Excessive force reduces liability |
| KKO 1992:104 | 1992 | Intervening to protect friend | Third-party defence | Allowed | Defending others is justified |
| KKO 2000:56 | 2000 | Home intruder | Lethal force | Mitigated | Defence of home recognized |
| KKO 2005:22 | 2005 | Retaliation after bar punch | Immediate threat | Partial liability | Only immediate threat covered |
| KKO 2010:41 | 2010 | Knife mugging, used firearm | Proportionality | No liability | Lethal threat allows lethal defence |
| KKO 2014:78 | 2014 | Shop owner restrained thief | Property defence | Liability maintained | Self-defence protects persons, not property |
| KKO 2018:33 | 2018 | Mistaken threat perception | Subjective belief | Mitigated | Genuine fear considered |
| KKO 2021:19 | 2021 | Domestic abuse preemptive strike | Contextual threat | Reduced liability | Ongoing threats broaden defence scope |
Conclusion:
Finnish self-defence law is flexible but structured, focusing on immediacy, necessity, and proportionality. Courts carefully weigh the threat, the defensive response, and contextual factors, with mitigation for excessive or preemptive actions in special circumstances like domestic abuse.
RELATED Blog
comments