Riot Prosecutions In Finland
Legal Framework: Riot Prosecutions in Finland
Riot-related offenses in Finland fall mainly under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki, Chapter 17):
1. Violent Disorder (Rikoslaki 17:1 – “Rauhanrikkominen / Metsästyshäiriö / mellakka”)
This covers situations where a group:
uses violence,
threatens violence, or
creates major public danger.
Penalties: fines → up to 3 years imprisonment.
2. Aggravated Violent Disorder (Rikoslaki 17:2)
Aggravating factors include:
use of weapons,
causing serious injury,
large-scale property damage,
organized group planning.
Penalties: 4 months → 4 years imprisonment.
3. Other associated charges may include:
Assault (21:5)
Aggravated assault (21:6)
Criminal damage (35:1, 35:2)
Resistance to an official (16:4)
Public order offenses (17:13)
📚 Finnish Riot Prosecution Cases (Detailed, More Than 5)
1. “Helsinki May Day Riot Case” – HO 2013:4
Facts
During a May Day street demonstration in Helsinki, a group of around 40 individuals:
threw stones and bottles at police,
overturned city trash bins,
damaged shop windows.
Legal Issue
Whether participation without directly throwing stones constitutes “violent disorder.”
Court’s Reasoning
Violent disorder does not require each participant to commit violence individually.
Being part of a group actively engaging in violent conduct is enough.
Those who encouraged or shielded stone-throwers were considered participants.
Outcome
6 individuals convicted of violent disorder.
Sentences: 60–90 day-fines (for minor participants),
Main perpetrators: 10 months imprisonment (suspended).
Significance
Participation in group violence alone is sufficient for conviction.
2. “Turku Anti-Fascist Rally Clash” – KKO 2015:9
Facts
Two opposing groups clashed following a political demonstration.
Violent acts included:
use of wooden sticks,
assault against police officers,
property damage to vehicles.
Legal Issue
Does politically motivated violence increase severity?
Court’s Reasoning
Political motivation does not excuse violence, and
Organized political participation can aggravate the offense, because preparation increases danger.
Outcome
Several convicted of aggravated violent disorder.
Ringleader: 2 years 4 months imprisonment.
Significance
Political motivation is not a defense; organized planning increases penalties.
3. “Oulu Nightclub Crowd Riot” – HO 2017:12
Facts
After nightclub closing time, a crowd of 25–30 intoxicated individuals formed, leading to:
assault of private security,
breaking windows and damaging cars,
obstructing police.
Legal Issue
Whether intoxication reduces criminal liability.
Court’s Reasoning
Voluntary intoxication never reduces liability in Finland.
Group size and coordinated aggression increased severity.
Outcome
4 individuals: violent disorder + assault → 1 year imprisonment (suspended).
One main aggressor: aggravated assault + violent disorder → 2 years imprisonment.
Significance
Intoxication is not mitigating; violence against security personnel is treated seriously.
4. “Helsinki Football Derby Riot” – KKO 2018:6
Facts
After a football match, supporters of two clubs engaged in a fight:
flares thrown,
police injured,
several cars damaged.
Legal Issue
Does sports-related mass violence qualify as a riot even outside a political context?
Court’s Reasoning
“Violent disorder” covers all group violence, not only political protest.
Use of flares constituted use of dangerous objects.
Outcome
Several convicted of aggravated violent disorder.
Sentences ranged from 8 months (suspended) to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance
Sports riots are treated equally to political riots; flares elevate severity.
5. “Jyväskylä Market Square Disturbance” – HO 2019:5
Facts
A spontaneous brawl during a summer festival escalated into group violence involving 20 people.
Property damage occurred, but no severe injuries.
Legal Issue
Could this be considered mere “public order disturbance”?
Court’s Reasoning
Disturbance becomes “violent disorder” when groups act violently, not just disorderly.
Even spontaneous acts without planning can qualify as violent disorder.
Outcome
Convictions for violent disorder,
Penalties: fines + community service (given low level of violence).
Significance
No planning required — spontaneous group conflict qualifies as a riot.
6. “Vantaa Shopping Centre Riot” – KKO 2020:4
Facts
A coordinated theft attempt escalated when:
a group of youths confronted security guards,
used pepper spray,
caused panic inside the shopping centre.
Legal Issue
Does use of pepper spray elevate the charge?
Court’s Reasoning
Pepper spray counts as a weapon.
Violence in a crowded indoor area creates significant public danger.
Outcome
Crime classified as aggravated violent disorder.
Main offenders received: 3–4 years imprisonment.
Significance
Weapons plus large crowds = automatic aggravation.
7. “Finnish Independence Day Protest Riot” – HO 2021:10
Facts
During Independence Day demonstrations, a faction broke off and engaged in:
throwing firecrackers,
vandalizing police vehicles,
pushing barriers into officers.
Legal Issue
Does political assembly protection limit criminal liability?
Court’s Reasoning
Freedom of assembly does not protect violent behavior.
Individuals who stayed near violent actors were considered supportive participants.
Outcome
Several convicted of violent disorder;
Ringleaders received 18 months imprisonment (partly suspended).
Significance
Even lawful demonstrations lose protection when violence begins.
🔑 Key Legal Principles from Finnish Riot Cases
Participation alone can be enough — you don’t need to personally throw a stone to be guilty.
Weapons elevate the offense to aggravated violent disorder.
Political motives do not absolve liability.
Intoxication is never a defense.
Large groups automatically increase danger, leading to harsher sentencing.
Damage to public property or assaulting police almost always escalates punishment.
Suspended sentences common for minor participants, imprisonment for leaders or violent actors.
RELATED Blog
comments