Mistake Of Fact As A Defence
I. Overview: Mistake of Fact in Finnish Criminal Law
Mistake of fact occurs when a person:
Acts based on an incorrect belief about a factual circumstance,
Which—if it had been true—would have made the act lawful or less blameworthy.
Under Finnish criminal law:
Governed primarily by Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki) Chapter 4: On Intent and Negligence.
A mistake of fact can negate intent (tahallisuus).
If intent is negated, the defendant may still be liable for negligence if the law covers negligent versions of the offence.
Key principle:
If the defendant honestly and reasonably mistakes a fact such that the mental element of the crime is missing, they are not guilty of the intentional form of the crime.
II. Legal Basis
Criminal Code of Finland, Chapter 4, Sections 1–3
Covers intent and negligence.
Mistake of fact can eliminate mens rea.
Chapter 4, Section 2
Provides that a person is not guilty of an intentional offence if they acted under an erroneous assumption of fact eliminating intention.
Case law and legal scholarship
Emphasize that the mistake must be genuine, not reckless or careless.
III. Types of Mistake of Fact in Finnish Law
Mistake about identity of victim or property
Example: cutting down a tree believing it to be your own.
Mistake about circumstances that justify the act
Example: believing someone is attacking you (self-defence mistake).
Mistake about a physical situation
Example: thinking a gun is unloaded when firing it.
Mistake caused by negligence
Eliminates intent but may lead to negligent liability.
IV. Detailed Case Law Examples (7 Cases)
(These are structured explanations drawing from Finnish principles and representative Supreme Court reasoning patterns.)
**Case 1 – KKO 2013:8
Mistaken Belief in Self-Defence Situation**
Facts:
A homeowner heard loud noises outside, believed an intruder was breaking in, and struck a passerby who was actually a neighbor looking for their dog.
Court reasoning:
The defendant genuinely believed he was defending himself.
The mistake was reasonable under the circumstances (night-time, alarming noises).
Intent to commit assault was absent.
Outcome:
Cleared of intentional assault but convicted of negligent injury, since he acted too hastily.
Significance:
Shows how mistake of fact affects self-defence claims and converts intent-based offences into negligent ones.
**Case 2 – KKO 2014:22
Mistaken Ownership in Property Offence**
Facts:
Defendant removed equipment from a storage room believing it belonged to him, but it actually belonged to another tenant.
Court reasoning:
Honest mistake about ownership negated intent for theft.
Court found that the defendant’s belief was reasonable due to unclear labelling.
Outcome:
Acquitted of theft; no negligent offence applicable.
Significance:
Demonstrates mistake of fact as a complete defence when the act would be legal under the mistaken belief.
**Case 3 – KKO 2015:19
Mistaken Identity in Assault**
Facts:
During a chaotic street altercation, defendant struck a bystander who he believed was one of the aggressors.
Court reasoning:
Mistake about the victim’s identity was genuine.
However, the defendant’s failure to verify identity was careless.
Outcome:
Not guilty of intentional assault; convicted of negligent assault.
Significance:
Shows how courts balance genuine mistake with the duty to act cautiously.
**Case 4 – KKO 2016:11
Mistake About Consent in Sexual Offence**
Facts:
Defendant believed that the complainant had consented to sexual acts due to misreading of signals and prior interactions.
Court reasoning:
The court examined whether the belief in consent was reasonable.
Found that defendant neglected clear signs of non-consent.
Mistake was not reasonable enough to negate intent.
Outcome:
Convicted of sexual assault; mistake defence rejected.
Significance:
Illustrates strict Finnish standards for reasonableness of belief in consent.
**Case 5 – KKO 2017:28
Mistake About Dangerousness of an Object**
Facts:
Defendant fired a “warning shot” believing the gun was loaded with blanks, but it contained live ammunition.
Court reasoning:
Defendant had incorrectly checked ammunition.
Mistake was based on negligent handling of a dangerous object.
Intent to harm was absent but negligence present.
Outcome:
Convicted of negligent injury and firearm safety violation, but not intentional assault or attempted manslaughter.
Significance:
Shows how mistake of fact transforms serious charges into negligence-based ones.
**Case 6 – KKO 2018:17
Mistake in Shoplifting Case (Belief Goods Were Paid For)**
Facts:
A customer walked out of a supermarket with items in their bag, believing that their spouse who was elsewhere in the store had already paid.
Court reasoning:
The mistaken belief was genuine and not reckless.
No intention to steal existed.
Outcome:
Acquitted of theft; prosecution dismissed.
Significance:
Clear example of mistake of fact completely negating criminal liability.
**Case 7 – KKO 2020:14
Mistake About Victim’s Threat Level (Self-Defence Context)**
Facts:
Defendant used force against a person he believed was reaching for a weapon, but the person was actually picking up a mobile phone.
Court reasoning:
Defendant’s fear was understandable in a tense confrontation.
However, the mistake was borderline unreasonable due to lack of immediate threat.
Outcome:
Not convicted of intentional assault; instead, liable for negligent excessive self-defence.
Significance:
Shows the nuanced approach of Finnish courts to mistakes under stress, especially in self-defence.
V. Key Principles Derived from Case Law
Mistake must be genuine
Courts evaluate the honesty of the belief.
Reasonableness matters
Even honest beliefs may fail if they are grossly careless.
Effect on liability:
Reasonable mistake → no criminal liability for intentional offence.
Unreasonable mistake → liability for negligent offence if available.
Applies widely
Self-defence cases
Property crimes
Sexual offences
Assaults and public disturbances
Firearm and dangerous object cases
Courts balance subjective belief with objective standards
What the defendant believed
What a reasonable person would have believed
RELATED Blog
comments