Landmark Judgments On Necessity
Definition:
Necessity is a defense in criminal law which justifies an otherwise illegal act if it is committed:
To avoid imminent and greater harm.
When there is no reasonable legal alternative.
When the harm caused by the act is proportionate to the harm avoided.
In Finland, necessity is codified in the Criminal Code, Chapter 3, Sections 2–4, covering:
Absolute necessity (e.g., saving lives).
Relative necessity (harm caused must be proportionate).
Key Elements of Necessity
Existence of a threat or danger – The threat must be imminent and real.
Proportionality – The harm caused must not exceed the harm avoided.
No reasonable alternative – The act must be the only viable option to avert harm.
Voluntariness and intention – The act must be intentional to avoid harm, not accidental.
Landmark Judgments on Necessity
Case 1: KKO 1968 II 63 – Life-Saving Necessity
Facts:
Defendant broke into a cabin in the forest to seek shelter during a severe snowstorm.
Legal Issue:
Whether breaking and entering was justified under necessity.
Decision:
Supreme Court acquitted the defendant.
Court held that imminent threat to life justified trespass.
Significance:
Established that necessity can justify property offences when human life is at risk.
Case 2: KKO 1976 II 120 – Necessity in Self-Defense vs Necessity
Facts:
Defendant caused minor property damage to prevent a fire from spreading to neighboring buildings.
Legal Issue:
Whether causing property damage to prevent greater damage was justified.
Decision:
Court recognized necessity as a justification.
The act was proportionate to the harm prevented.
Significance:
Clarified relative necessity, where minor harm is permissible to avert greater harm.
Case 3: KKO 1985:34 – Emergency Medical Necessity
Facts:
A doctor performed surgery without full patient consent to save life in an emergency.
Legal Issue:
Can medical intervention without consent be justified under necessity?
Decision:
Supreme Court upheld the doctor’s action.
Necessity was recognized as a defense when immediate action is needed to save life.
Significance:
Strengthened the doctrine of necessity in medical emergencies.
Emphasized that consent can be bypassed only in urgent, life-threatening situations.
Case 4: KKO 1993:56 – Necessity in Economic Crime
Facts:
Defendant took food from a store during extreme hunger and poverty.
Legal Issue:
Whether theft could be excused under necessity.
Decision:
Court acquitted the defendant, stating that immediate need to preserve life or health can justify minor theft.
Significance:
Extended necessity to economic necessity in extreme circumstances.
Highlighted proportionality – only small, necessary items are excusable.
Case 5: KKO 2001:45 – Necessity in Public Order
Facts:
Protestors blocked a road to prevent construction that could damage a historically protected area.
Legal Issue:
Whether minor public order offences could be justified under necessity for environmental protection.
Decision:
Court partially accepted necessity, considering social value and proportionality of the act.
Acts causing serious danger to public safety were not excusable.
Significance:
Introduced the idea that necessity may consider broader social goods, not just immediate personal threats.
Case 6: European Court of Human Rights – McCann v. United Kingdom (1995) (illustrative of proportionality principle)
Facts:
Security forces used lethal force against suspected terrorists to prevent an imminent attack.
Legal Issue:
Whether the use of force was proportionate and necessary.
Decision:
Court emphasized strict proportionality and necessity: lethal force must be last resort to prevent imminent harm.
Significance:
Influences Finnish courts regarding state action and necessity, especially in law enforcement.
Case 7: KKO 2010:19 – Necessity and Property Defence
Facts:
Defendant trespassed to remove dangerous chemicals from a neighbor’s unsecured property to prevent explosion.
Legal Issue:
Whether trespass was justified under necessity.
Decision:
Supreme Court acquitted the defendant.
Harm prevented (explosion) was greater than property violation, meeting proportionality test.
Significance:
Reinforced principle that necessity can justify otherwise illegal acts when preventing serious imminent harm.
Key Principles from Landmark Judgments
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| KKO 1968 II 63 | Necessity can justify trespass to save life |
| KKO 1976 II 120 | Minor harm to prevent greater harm is excusable |
| KKO 1985:34 | Medical necessity allows action without consent |
| KKO 1993:56 | Economic necessity (hunger, poverty) can justify minor theft |
| KKO 2001:45 | Social or environmental goods can justify minor offences if proportional |
| McCann v. UK | Proportionality in state action is essential under necessity |
| KKO 2010:19 | Preventing serious danger to property can justify trespass |
Conclusion
The doctrine of necessity:
Provides flexibility in criminal law to allow otherwise illegal acts when preventing greater harm.
Finnish courts consistently emphasize proportionality, imminence, and lack of alternatives.
Extended applications include:
Life-saving acts.
Medical emergencies.
Economic necessity.
Environmental protection.
Necessity cannot be a blanket defense for serious crimes or foreseeable harm.
RELATED Blog
comments