Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 12.02.1985 27 AI generated

Court dismissed aiding of unlicensed driving and traffic violation, allowing only aiding of drunk driving conviction.

Case Number Helsingin HO 12.02.1985 27
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 by excluding charges for aiding unlicensed driving and traffic violations, retaining only the aiding of drunk driving conviction. The lower court had convicted the defendant for assisting a driver without a license and committing traffic offenses while also aiding a drunk driver. The appellate court ruled that aiding unlicensed driving and traffic violations are not punishable offenses under the relevant traffic law section, thus finding no crime committed in those specific aspects.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RL 5 luvun 3 §:n 4 mom; Aiding of unlicensed driving and traffic violations are not punishable offenses under the Traffic Offences Act, so such assistance does not constitute a crime, whereas aiding drunk driving remains punishable.

Keywords

AI generated
aiding of drunk driving unlicensed driving offense traffic violation assistance criminal liability scope Traffic Offences Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RL 5 luvun 3 §:n 4 mom

Cited Case Law

AI generated
I-SHO:n T 1457/83
Ks. myös I-SHO:n T 1457/83
AI generated
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__1457
Assisting driving without a license is not a crime; only aiding drunk driving is punishable.
appeal_1980_rovaniemi__539
Assisting a drunk driver by pushing a car with the engine off does not constitute aiding the crime of drunk driving.
appeal_1982_eastern-finland__1596
Court merged multiple traffic offenses into one act for sentencing purposes.
kko-precedent_2013_101
Supreme Court allows retrial for drunk driving case due to insufficient reasoning on intent and danger. The court found the lower court's justification inadequate for the verdict.
kko-other_2012_1956
Supreme Court allows appeal against conviction, reducing sentence to four years and ordering compensation for legal aid costs.

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 oli pimeän aikana työntänyt autoa ajoradalla samalla kun ajokortiton B alkoholin vaikutuksen alaisena hänen verensä alkoholipitoisuuden ollessa 1.49 promillea oli ohjannut ja työntänyt mainittua autoa ulkoa käsin ajovaloja käyttämättä. RO tuomitsi A:n rangaistukseen avunannosta yksin teoin tehtyihin rattijuopumukseen, ajokortitta ajoon ja liikennerikkomukseen.

HO katsoi, että koska avunanto ajokortitta ajoon ja liikennerikkomukseen eivät ole RL 5 luvun 3 §:n 4 mom:n mukaan rangaistavia tekoja, niin A ei B:n syyksi luettua ajokortitta ajoa ja liikennerikkomusta edistämällä ollut syyllistynyt rikokseen ja tuomitsi A:n rangaistukseen ainoastaan avunannosta rattijuopumukseen.

Ks. myös I-SHO:n T 1457/83

Honkasalo: Suomen rikosoikeus, Yleiset opit I 1965 s. 102

Ellilä: Uusittu liikennerikosoikeus 1974 s. 89

Läsnä: Järvinen, Lakovaara ja Karppinen (apuj.) Esittelijä: Ovaskainen Lainvoimainen