Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 08.06.1979 949/79 AI generated

Court reduces escape charge to escape only when damage is merely incidental to the act.

Case Number Vaasan HO 08.06.1979 949/79
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court of appeal reduced the defendant's sentence from combined charges of escape and damage to a single charge of escape. The defendant argued that the damage caused was no greater than necessary to facilitate the escape and thus did not constitute a separate crime. The court agreed, ruling that incidental damage resulting directly from the escape act does not warrant a separate conviction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Penal Code; Section 11 of the Penal Code: Damage caused solely as a necessary consequence of committing the crime of escape does not constitute a separate offense of damage.

Keywords

AI generated
escape from custody incidental damage separate offense necessary consequence criminal liability penal code sentencing reduction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Penal Code
Section 11 of the Penal Code

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1950-II-277
KKO:1950-II-277, KKO:1954-II-75
KKO:1954-II-75
KKO:1950-II-277, KKO:1954-II-75
AI generated
kko-other_2024_1643
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding refusal of further stay of execution due to serious fraud in asylum case.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1986
Court of Appeal reduced sentence to probation and added fine despite Supreme Court's prior conviction.
kko-other_2025_115
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding refusal of continued detention order based on serious crime grounds.
kko-precedent_2012_70
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on detention order during second-instance criminal proceedings under Coercive Measures Act.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__766
Court upheld conviction for aggravated assault, rejecting reformatio in peius request despite new evidence of life-threatening injury.

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 tuominnut A:n rangaistukseen yksin teoin tehdyistä vangin karkaamisesta ja vahingonteosta. Vankilarakennukselle aiheutetun vahingon määrä oli ollut 1.750 markkaa.

Kun A ei ollut aiheuttanut enempää vahinkoa kuin mitä oli ollut välttämätöntä karkaamisen toteuttamiseksi ja vahingonteon siten ei ollut katsottava muodostavan eri rikosta, hovioikeus tuomitsi A:n rangaistukseen vain vangin karkaamisesta.

Vrt. KKO:1950-II-277, KKO:1954-II-75

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös 1.11.1979: ei muutoksenhakulupaa