Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 19.11.1971 284,285/71 AI generated

Hunting a reindeer on a pasture is not hunting; shooting a domestic reindeer is not a crime.

Case Number Vaasan HO 19.11.1971 284,285/71
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The lower court convicted the defendant for hunting with a prohibited firearm while shooting a reindeer on a pasture. The Court of Appeal determined that a reindeer is a domestic animal and therefore its killing does not constitute hunting under the law. Consequently, the appeal was granted, the prosecution was dismissed, and the defendant was acquitted.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Metsästyslaki 1971; Kotieläinlainen 1971: Killing a domestic reindeer is not considered hunting under the Hunting Act, and thus shooting it with a prohibited firearm does not constitute a crime.

Keywords

AI generated
domestic reindeer hunting definition prohibited firearm acquittal animal classification

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Metsästyslaki 1971
kotieläinlainen 1971
AI generated
appeal_1982_vaasa__2382
Court of Appeal rules hunting ban starts when decision gains legal force, not when originally issued.
kko-precedent_1998_40
Supreme Court remands case for clarification of specific criminal acts and legal grounds for conviction.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2020:51
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; charge for misappropriation upheld despite civil ownership change of funds.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__766
Court upheld conviction for aggravated assault, rejecting reformatio in peius request despite new evidence of life-threatening injury.
kko-other_2016_1907
Supreme Court allows retrial for hunting offense where police authorized killing injured animal.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Kihlakunnanoikeus oli katsonut, että poron ampuminen paimentamattomasta tokasta laitumella oli metsästämistä, jossa pienoiskiväärin

käyttäminen oli kielletty, ja tuomitsi A:n Mets.L:n 42 §:n 3 momentin ja 64 §:n 1 momentin 1 kohdan nojalla rangaistukseen metsästämisestä kielletyllä aseella.

Hovioikeus, jossa A haki muutosta, tutki jutun ja, koska poro on kotieläin eikä poron ampumista näin ollen ole katsottava metsästämiseksi, hovioikeus kumoten kihlakunnanoikeuden päätöksen hylkäsi A:ta vastaan ajetun syytteen ja vapautti tämän rangaistuksesta.

Ks. Kytömaa: Metsästyslainsäädäntömme selityksineen, 1971, s. 15 ss.

Lainvoimainen