Public Order Offences In Finland
✅ Legal Framework: Public Order Offences in Finland
Main Provisions (Criminal Code, Chapter 17)
Section 1 – Causing a Public Disturbance
Section 2 – Violent Behavior (Public Place)
Section 3 – Unlawful Threat
Section 6 – Obstructing Public Official Activity
Section 13 – Disorderly Conduct
Section 22 – Riot / Participating in a Group Disturbance
Public order offences usually arise in:
nightlife (bars, streets, clubs),
demonstrations,
public transport,
public institutions,
or events involving alcohol.
Sentences typically range from fines to imprisonment (up to 2 years for aggravated behavior or riot).
✅ CASE 1: Violent Disturbance Outside a Nightclub (District Court, 2013)
Facts:
A man, heavily intoxicated, punched another person outside a Helsinki nightclub and continued shouting and kicking doors as police attempted to calm him.
Legal Issue:
Public disturbance + violent behavior in a public place.
Court Reasoning:
Violence occurred in a crowded public area at night.
Aggressive behavior continued despite police orders.
Alcohol was not a mitigating factor.
Outcome:
Conviction for violent behavior.
60 day-fine + compensation to the victim.
Significance:
Finnish courts treat alcohol-fueled street violence as a clear public order offence even when injuries are minor.
✅ CASE 2: Disorderly Conduct on a Bus (District Court, 2015)
Facts:
A passenger refused to pay the fare, screamed at the driver, verbally abused passengers, and refused to leave the bus when ordered.
Legal Issue:
Disorderly conduct + refusal to obey a lawful order.
Court Reasoning:
The disruption affected the safety and functioning of public transport.
Behavior created fear among passengers.
Verbal aggression alone was enough to constitute a public order offence.
Outcome:
Conviction for disorderly conduct.
Fines + ban from public transport line for a limited period.
Significance:
Shows that non-violent but aggressive behavior can still qualify as a public order offence when it disrupts public services.
✅ CASE 3: Demonstration Turning Violent (Court of Appeal, 2016)
Facts:
A political demonstration in Tampere escalated when several participants threw objects at police and damaged property. A few individuals encouraged the crowd verbally.
Legal Issue:
Participating in a group disturbance (riot).
Court Reasoning:
Encouraging others to attack police is sufficient involvement.
Public demonstrations have legal protections, but violence removes constitutional protection.
Intent to disrupt public peace was established by actions, not words alone.
Outcome:
Convictions for participation in a riot.
Sentences ranged from suspended imprisonment (4–6 months) to fines.
Significance:
Finnish courts impose harsher penalties when public order offences occur during politically charged gatherings.
✅ CASE 4: Unlawful Threat in a Public Office (District Court, 2017)
Facts:
A man became angry at a Kela (social insurance office) worker, shouted threats, and claimed he would “come back with a weapon”. The office had to close temporarily.
Legal Issue:
Unlawful threat + public disruption.
Court Reasoning:
Threats made in public institutions endanger employees and disrupt services.
The subjective experience of fear by staff was legally relevant.
Even if no weapon exists, threat is punishable if it causes fear.
Outcome:
Conviction; conditional imprisonment (2 months).
Mandatory compensation for psychological distress.
Significance:
Threats in public service environments are treated as serious public order violations.
✅ CASE 5: Aggressive Begging and Harassment (District Court, 2019)
Facts:
A person repeatedly followed pedestrians, grabbed clothing, and shouted aggressively while demanding money at a busy train station.
Legal Issue:
Disorderly conduct; harassment in a public place.
Court Reasoning:
Begging itself is legal in Finland, BUT
coercive or aggressive begging violates public order.
Physical contact and intimidation strengthened the offence.
Outcome:
Conviction; day-fines and restraining order from the station area.
Significance:
Court distinguishes between peaceful begging (legal) and harassing behavior (criminal).
✅ CASE 6: Explosive Fireworks in Urban Area (District Court, 2020)
Facts:
A group set off powerful fireworks between apartment buildings outside permitted hours and continued despite warnings from neighbors and police.
Legal Issue:
Public disturbance and endangerment.
Court Reasoning:
Fireworks in dense residential areas breach public order and create risk.
Repeated warnings increased culpability.
Presence of children and elderly in the area was noted as aggravating.
Outcome:
Convictions; fines and confiscation of remaining explosives.
Significance:
Finnish courts treat dangerous spectacle behavior (fireworks, street races, etc.) as public order offences.
✅ CASE 7: Public Drunkenness and Resisting Police (Court of Appeal, 2021)
Facts:
A heavily intoxicated man repeatedly harassed passers-by, lay in the street, and resisted police attempts to detain him for safety reasons.
Legal Issue:
Public disturbance
Obstructing a police officer
Court Reasoning:
Public drunkenness alone isn’t criminal, but when it creates danger or disruption, it becomes an offence.
Resistance against police performing legal duties is punished separately.
Outcome:
Conviction; fine + compensation for damaged equipment.
Significance:
Police-resistance automatically transforms a minor public order issue into a more serious criminal case.
✅ Key Observations from All Cases
✔ Alcohol-related behavior is a major source
Courts routinely handle nightclub, street, and festival disturbances.
✔ Threats + public institutions = harshest consequences
Threats in Kela offices, hospitals, and police stations are seen as severe.
✔ Public service disruption increases penalties
Offences on buses, trains, and government offices carry higher weight.
✔ Group violence escalates charges
Demonstrations that turn violent can lead to “group disturbance” or “riot” charges.
✔ Non-violent behavior can still be criminal
Aggressive shouting, intimidation, or blocking public services qualifies as a public order offence even without physical contact.
RELATED Blog
comments