Offences Against The State And Public Order

03 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Introduction: Offences Against the State and Public Order in Finland

In Finland, offences against the state and public order are primarily codified in the Finnish Penal Code (Rikoslaki), particularly:

Chapter 11: Crimes against the State (e.g., treason, espionage)

Chapter 17: Offences against public order (e.g., rioting, unlawful assembly, public incitement)

These offences are treated seriously because they threaten national security, democratic institutions, and societal stability. Courts consider intent, threat level, and societal impact when determining guilt and punishment.

1. KKO 2008:70 – Espionage Case

Facts:
A Finnish citizen was found transferring confidential state documents to a foreign intelligence agency.

Procedural History:
The District Court convicted the defendant of espionage under Chapter 11 of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence slightly due to cooperation.

Legal Issues:
The key question was whether the act met the threshold of treasonous intent and whether accidental disclosure counted.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, clarifying that intentional transmission of state secrets to a foreign power constitutes espionage, regardless of actual harm. This case reinforced the strict interpretation of state security offences.

2. KKO 2010:42 – Terrorism Financing

Facts:
The defendant provided funds to a terrorist organization abroad. Finnish authorities prosecuted under anti-terror legislation in line with UN and EU obligations.

Procedural History:
Convicted by the District Court; appeal argued lack of proof that the funds were knowingly used for terrorism.

Legal Issues:
Whether knowledge and intent could be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Court held that circumstantial evidence could establish intent to support terrorist acts. The conviction was confirmed, highlighting the Finnish judiciary’s strict stance on terrorism-related public order offences.

3. KKO 2012:15 – Incitement to Public Unrest

Facts:
A person publicly posted material encouraging violent protests against governmental decisions.

Procedural History:
The District Court convicted for incitement to public disorder. Appeal challenged whether freedom of expression protected the statements.

Legal Issues:
Balancing freedom of speech with the need to prevent public disorder.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Court ruled that incitement to violence is not protected speech. Conviction was upheld, establishing that Finnish law criminalizes speech intended to provoke imminent violence or disorder.

4. KKO 2014:29 – Riot Participation

Facts:
During a large public demonstration, several individuals engaged in violent clashes with police and property damage.

Procedural History:
The District Court convicted participants of riot under Chapter 17. Appeal argued that spontaneous participation without leadership did not constitute a riot.

Legal Issues:
Determining whether group violence during public assemblies meets the statutory threshold for a riot.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Court clarified that a riot requires a group engaging in violent acts causing public disorder, not leadership or planning. Several participants’ convictions were upheld, reinforcing legal standards for public order offences.

5. KKO 2016:54 – Treason Case

Facts:
A government official was accused of providing classified defense information to a foreign country during peacetime.

Procedural History:
The District Court convicted for treason. The appeal challenged whether the actions were sufficiently harmful to the state.

Legal Issues:
Whether treason under Chapter 11 requires actual harm or only intent to harm state security.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Court ruled that intentional actions compromising national security are sufficient for treason, even if no actual harm occurred. This strengthened protections for sensitive state information.

6. KKO 2018:21 – Public Order: Unlawful Assembly

Facts:
A group gathered without authorization in a public square and blocked traffic while protesting a municipal decision.

Procedural History:
Convicted under unlawful assembly laws in the District Court; appeal claimed minor disruption and peaceful intentions.

Legal Issues:
The threshold for criminal liability in public gatherings.

Supreme Court Decision:
The Court upheld the conviction, noting that obstruction and unauthorized assembly in public spaces are punishable, even if intended peacefully, to protect public order.

7. KKO 2019:33 – Cyber Threats Against Government Officials

Facts:
An individual made repeated online threats against government officials, causing fear and disruption of public services.

Procedural History:
Convicted under laws against threats and public order offences; appeal challenged whether online statements counted as actionable threats.

Legal Issues:
Interpretation of threats via digital media under Finnish law.

Supreme Court Decision:
Conviction upheld. Court emphasized that threats to public officials, including online threats, are taken seriously to protect state functioning. This case set precedent for cyber public order offences.