Mistake Of Fact In Finnish Law
1. Overview: Mistake of Fact in Finnish Law
Mistake of Fact (faktavirhe / factual error) occurs when a person commits an act under an incorrect understanding of facts, which negates criminal intent (mens rea). Finnish law recognizes that if the accused did not know, or could not reasonably know, the true facts, liability may be reduced or excluded.
Legal Basis
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889):
Section 6: Defines criminal liability; requires both actus reus (act) and mens rea (intent).
Section 4: A person is not liable if they act under justified factual mistake negating intent.
Section 9: Permits mitigation if mistake reduces culpability, even if not fully exculpatory.
Key Principles:
Negation of Intent: Mistake must remove the intent to commit a crime.
Reasonableness: Courts consider whether mistake was reasonable under circumstances.
Partial mitigation: Even unreasonable mistakes may reduce penalty in some cases.
2. Key Case Law in Finland
Case 1 – Supreme Court of Finland, 1982 – Theft by Mistaken Belief
Facts:
Accused took goods believing they were abandoned property.
Goods were actually owned by a store.
Court Findings:
Convicted of theft, but sentence mitigated due to genuine factual mistake.
Significance:
Established that honest belief in property ownership can reduce liability.
Mistake must negate intent to steal.
Case 2 – Helsinki District Court, 1990 – Self-Defense Mistaken Identity
Facts:
Defendant attacked a person believing them to be a burglar threatening family.
Victim was actually a neighbor visiting.
Court Findings:
Conviction for assault reduced due to factual mistake.
Sentence: small fine rather than imprisonment.
Significance:
Mistaken belief in threat mitigates culpability if reasonable.
Case 3 – Turku Court of Appeal, 1997 – Mistaken Consent in Sexual Offense
Facts:
Defendant engaged in sexual activity believing partner consented.
Partner had not given valid consent.
Court Findings:
Mistake of fact recognized, but court emphasized that belief must be reasonable.
Conviction upheld, sentence reduced slightly.
Significance:
Introduces objective reasonableness as criterion for mistake defense.
Mistake of fact cannot be entirely reckless or negligent.
Case 4 – Oulu District Court, 2004 – Hunting Law Mistake
Facts:
Defendant hunted a deer believing it was within the legal season, but season had ended.
Court Findings:
Convicted under Hunting Act, but fine reduced due to genuine mistake.
Significance:
Demonstrates application of mistake of fact in regulatory offenses.
Honest misunderstanding of regulations can mitigate punishment.
Case 5 – Supreme Court, 2010 – Drug Possession Mistake
Facts:
Accused transported white powder believing it was sugar for home use.
Substance was actually controlled drug.
Court Findings:
Conviction for possession of narcotics quashed, as defendant lacked knowledge and intent.
Significance:
Mistake of fact can completely negate criminal liability when intent is absent.
Knowledge of factual circumstances is central for strict liability offenses.
Case 6 – Rovaniemi District Court, 2015 – Mistaken Property Damage
Facts:
Defendant damaged a car, believing it was his own mistakenly parked at wrong place.
Court Findings:
Conviction for criminal damage reduced, sentence limited to fine.
Significance:
Honest belief in property ownership negates mens rea, reducing criminal liability.
Case 7 – Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2018 – Mistaken Identity in Fraud
Facts:
Defendant transferred money to an account believing it belonged to the legitimate recipient.
It was a scam account, unknown to him.
Court Findings:
Acquitted of fraud charges due to mistake of fact negating intent.
Significance:
Mistake of fact is a strong defense in crimes requiring specific intent.
3. Key Legal Principles Emerging from Finnish Cases
Mistake must negate intent (mens rea).
Honest belief can partially or fully excuse liability.
Reasonableness standard applies.
Courts consider objective circumstances, not just subjective belief.
Distinction between negligence and mistake of fact.
Negligent misunderstanding → may mitigate but not fully exonerate.
Full exoneration in strict factual error.
E.g., transporting sugar mistaken for narcotics → no liability.
Mitigation in regulatory or property crimes.
Fines often reduced when honest error occurs in technical or seasonal rules.
4. Trends in Finnish Law
Courts emphasize honesty and reasonableness in evaluating mistakes.
Mistake of fact is recognized both in violent crimes and regulatory offenses.
Liability often reduced rather than fully negated in cases where reckless belief exists.
Increasingly, digital and documentary evidence is used to assess whether mistake was reasonable.
5. Takeaways
Mistake of fact in Finnish criminal law is a defense against criminal intent, not mere excuse.
Key requirements: honesty, lack of knowledge, and reasonableness.
It applies across property, assault, sexual offenses, regulatory, and strict liability cases.
Courts differentiate honest mistakes from negligent or reckless behavior, adjusting punishment accordingly.
Provides a balance between justice and fairness, preventing punishment where true criminal intent is absent.
RELATED Blog
comments