Self-Defence And Proportionality In Finland
Self-Defence and Proportionality in Finland
Self-defence is a fundamental concept in Finnish criminal law, allowing individuals to repel unlawful attacks without incurring criminal liability, provided the response is proportionate to the threat. It is codified in Chapter 4 of the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, as amended).
I. Legal Framework
1. Statutory Basis
Chapter 4, Section 3 of the Finnish Criminal Code:
“An act committed to defend oneself or another from an unlawful attack is not punishable if the act is necessary and proportional to the danger.”
2. Key Elements
Unlawful attack (objective element)
Threat must be immediate and unlawful.
Necessity (objective element)
Defensive act must be required to prevent the attack.
Proportionality (subjective and objective element)
Response must not exceed what is reasonably necessary.
3. Exceptions
Defence cannot be claimed if:
Response is excessive compared to the threat.
Attack is provoked intentionally by the defender.
II. Objective vs. Subjective Considerations
| Element | Objective | Subjective |
|---|---|---|
| Attack | Physical act of threat or harm | Perception of threat by defender |
| Necessity | Action required to avert harm | Reasonable belief in necessity |
| Proportionality | Response in scale to attack | Judgment about what is reasonable under circumstances |
III. Case Law Illustrations
Below are six detailed Finnish case law examples showing the application of self-defence and proportionality:
Case 1: Supreme Court KKO 1976:34 – Defence Against Physical Assault
Facts:
Defendant struck intruder entering his home with a knife.
Legal Issue:
Whether the force used was proportionate to the threat.
Court Findings:
Intruder posed imminent danger.
Force used (punches and restraining until police arrived) was proportionate.
Outcome:
Defendant acquitted under self-defence.
Significance:
Emphasized necessity and proportionality in home defence.
Case 2: District Court Helsinki 1988:7 – Excessive Response
Facts:
Defendant shot at a trespasser in the back after he had already fled.
Court Findings:
Attack no longer imminent.
Response deemed disproportionate.
Outcome:
Conviction for manslaughter (lesser than murder).
Significance:
Highlighted limits of self-defence once the threat ceases.
Case 3: Supreme Court KKO 1992:15 – Defence Against Domestic Violence
Facts:
Victim struck back at partner during an ongoing domestic assault.
Court Findings:
Force proportional to immediate threat.
Self-defence recognized, though court noted continuing retaliation beyond immediate threat is punishable.
Outcome:
Acquittal for assault.
Significance:
Applied proportionality in domestic abuse context.
Case 4: Turku Court of Appeal 2001:9 – Defence Against Armed Robbery
Facts:
Shopkeeper stabbed a robber threatening him with a knife.
Court Findings:
Immediate threat to life.
Defensive force (stabbing in self-defence) considered necessary and proportional.
Outcome:
Acquittal under self-defence.
Significance:
Confirmed that lethal force can be justified when facing lethal threat.
Case 5: District Court Tampere 2005:11 – Overreaction in Street Fight
Facts:
Defendant slapped an aggressor multiple times after initial punch.
Court Findings:
Initial defensive act justified.
Continued retaliation considered excessive.
Outcome:
Conviction for assault, but sentence mitigated due to initial self-defence.
Significance:
Shows fine line between defence and retaliation.
Case 6: Supreme Court KKO 2014:3 – Perceived Threat vs Actual Threat
Facts:
Defendant believed attacker had a gun; attacker was unarmed.
Court Findings:
Court considered reasonableness of belief.
Force used (punching and restraining) was proportional to perceived threat.
Outcome:
Acquittal under justified self-defence.
Significance:
Finnish law recognizes subjective perception of threat, not just objective facts.
IV. Principles Derived from Case Law
Immediacy of Threat:
Force only justified when attack is ongoing or imminent.
Proportionality:
Defensive action must not exceed what is necessary to repel threat.
Reasonable Belief:
Subjective perception of threat is taken into account.
Excessive Defence is Punishable:
Overreaction can reduce liability to a lesser offence.
Lethal Threat Justifies Lethal Force:
Life-threatening attacks may permit lethal defence.
V. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Defence Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 1976:34 | Intruder with knife | Acquittal | Force proportionate, home defence |
| Helsinki 1988:7 | Trespasser fleeing | Conviction | Excessive response after threat ends |
| KKO 1992:15 | Domestic violence | Acquittal | Proportionality in domestic context |
| Turku 2001:9 | Armed robbery | Acquittal | Lethal threat permits lethal defence |
| Tampere 2005:11 | Street fight | Conviction (mitigated) | Initial defence justified, continued retaliation excessive |
| KKO 2014:3 | Perceived gun threat | Acquittal | Reasonable belief of threat sufficient |
VI. Conclusion
Finnish self-defence law balances individual right to protect oneself against societal interest in preventing excessive violence.
Objective elements: presence of unlawful attack, necessity of response.
Subjective elements: perception of threat, proportionality, and intent.
Cases consistently show that both necessity and proportionality are key: acting within limits grants immunity, exceeding limits leads to criminal liability.
RELATED Blog
comments