Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 05.02.1985 2648 AI generated

Court rejects recidivism aggravation due to insufficient time gap between prior and new crimes.

Case Number Helsingin HO 05.02.1985 2648
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the request to apply the aggravating circumstance of recidivism under Section 6, Paragraph 2, Subsection 4 of the Penal Code. Although the defendant committed similar offenses in 1974, 1975, and 1977, the time elapsed between the last prior conviction and the new crimes was deemed insufficient to meet the statutory requirement. Consequently, the court ruled that the specific condition for aggravating the punishment based on recidivism was not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 6, Paragraph 2, Subsection 4 of the Penal Code; The time interval between the last prior conviction and the new offense must be sufficient to establish the statutory condition for recidivism-based aggravation.

Keywords

AI generated
recidivism aggravation time interval requirement Penal Code Section 6 criminal punishment enhancement prior conviction gap

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 6, Paragraph 2, Subsection 4 of the Penal Code
AI generated
appeal_1983_helsinki__2012
Court of Appeal upheld mandatory life imprisonment for repeat burglary despite youth and prior record.
kko-other_1995_4260
Supreme Court allows combined sentence to be mandatory when prior conditional sentence was already mandatory.
kko-other_1996_3939
Supreme Court allows conditional release for a bank employee sentenced to two years for serious conspiracy.
kko-precedent_1995_132
Supreme Court reverses conditional sentence for tax fraud, ruling mandatory imprisonment required due to crime severity.
kko-other_2011_2685
Supreme Court allows partial credit for prior sentence when new crime is less serious than the previous one.

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

A tuomittiin 12.5.1983 jatketusta rikoksesta, joka käsitti kaksi moottoriajoneuvon törkeätä luvatonta käyttöönottoa, neljä moottoriajoneuvon törkeän luvattoman käyttöönottamisen yritystä ja varkauden (tekoaika 14.-15.1. vastainen yö 1983) vankeusrangaistukseen.

A oli viimeksi syyllistynyt rikokseen 7.7.1977, josta hänet oli tuomittu vankeusrangaistukseen 19.10.1978. Vaikkakin tuo rikos ja A:n sitä ennen vuosina 1974 ja 1975 tekemät rikokset olivat olleet samankaltaisia nyt tutkittujen rikosten kanssa ei tämä sinänsä vielä noiden rikosten tekemisistä nyt tutkittuihin rikoksiin kulunut väliaika huomioon ottaen edellyttänyt rikoslain 6 luvun 2 §:n 4 kohdan koventamisperusteen soveltamista.

Läsnä: Liukko, Martimo (apuj.) ja Vihuri (apuj.) Esittelijä: Mäkinen

Lainvoimainen