Self-Defence Limits In Criminal Law
I. Overview of Self-Defence in Finnish Criminal Law
Self-defence in Finland is primarily governed by the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889, as amended):
Relevant Provisions
Chapter 4, Section 4 (4 §) — Self-defence (Hätävarjelu)
A person acting to defend themselves or another person against an unlawful attack is not criminally liable if:
The act is necessary to prevent or end the attack.
The force used is proportionate to the threat.
Chapter 4, Section 5 (5 §) — Excessive Self-defence
If the defensive act clearly exceeds what is necessary, it may lead to mitigated liability, but full criminal liability may arise.
Chapter 21 — Homicide and Assault
Self-defence can serve as justification or mitigation for homicide, assault, or property damage.
Key Principles
Necessity: Defensive act must respond to a real and immediate threat.
Proportionality: The force used should be reasonable in relation to the attack.
Immediacy: Threat must be current; preemptive or retaliatory attacks are generally not protected.
No Duty to Retreat: Finnish law does not generally impose a duty to retreat in the face of a direct attack, but retreat can reduce necessity.
II. Detailed Case Law on Self-Defence
Here are six notable KKO cases illustrating limits and principles of self-defence:
1. KKO 1988:112 — Excessive Use of Force in Self-Defence
Facts:
Defendant was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant.
Defendant responded by striking repeatedly with a heavy object, causing severe injury beyond what was necessary to neutralize the attacker.
Holding:
KKO held that while initial defensive response was justified, the continued attack after neutralizing the threat was excessive.
Conviction for aggravated assault was upheld but sentence mitigated due to the initial self-defence.
Significance:
Establishes proportionality principle: once threat is neutralized, further force is not justified.
2. KKO 1995:54 — Use of Deadly Force Against Intruder
Facts:
Homeowner shot an intruder who was unarmed but attempting to flee.
Intruder had previously threatened the homeowner verbally.
Holding:
KKO ruled that lethal force was not justified since the intruder no longer posed an immediate threat.
Conviction for homicide was upheld but mitigated due to fear and stress.
Significance:
Confirms immediacy requirement: danger must be present and ongoing.
Preemptive or retaliatory actions are not covered by self-defence.
3. KKO 2002:67 — Self-Defence Against Multiple Attackers
Facts:
Defendant attacked by three individuals, cornered with no escape.
Used a knife to injure attackers to protect own life.
Holding:
KKO held that defensive force was justified because:
The threat was immediate and serious.
No other means of escape were available.
Significance:
Multiple attackers increase necessity of defensive measures.
Supports using proportionate defensive weapons when threatened with serious harm.
4. KKO 2008:42 — Self-Defence in Property Protection
Facts:
Defendant caught a burglar breaking into their store at night.
Defendant used physical force to stop the burglar, causing injury.
Holding:
KKO held that force used to prevent unlawful property entry is justified, but only to the extent necessary.
Excessive force that would cause serious injury disproportionate to property value was not justified.
Significance:
Protection of property alone has stricter limits than self-defence of life or health.
Proportionality is key.
5. KKO 2014:21 — Mistaken Perception of Threat
Facts:
Defendant struck another person believing they were being attacked.
Later proved the person had no intention to harm.
Holding:
KKO ruled that defence is justified if the threat was perceived as imminent and reasonable, even if mistaken.
Conviction reduced due to good faith belief.
Significance:
Introduces subjective reasonable belief standard: reasonable fear can justify defensive action.
Mistaken perception mitigates liability if objectively reasonable.
6. KKO 2019:15 — Defensive Use of Weapons
Facts:
Defendant used a knife to defend against a person armed with a bat.
Victim suffered severe injuries.
Holding:
KKO ruled that use of a weapon is justified only if non-lethal means are insufficient.
Sentence mitigated due to necessity, but proportionality evaluated.
Significance:
Confirms principle of escalation proportionality: lethal force justified only if other measures inadequate against serious threat.
III. Summary of Principles from Finnish Case Law
Proportionality is Key — defensive act must not exceed the threat (KKO 1988:112, KKO 2008:42).
Immediacy Required — threat must be current, not hypothetical or past (KKO 1995:54).
Reasonable Belief Protects — honest and reasonable perception of danger can justify self-defence (KKO 2014:21).
Defence Against Property Has Limits — only minimal necessary force (KKO 2008:42).
Escalation by Weapons Permitted Only If Necessary — weapons use justified against equivalent serious threats (KKO 2002:67, KKO 2019:15).
Mitigation for Excessive Force — if act exceeds necessity, liability may be mitigated but not eliminated (KKO 1988:112).
RELATED Blog
comments