Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO VL:2026-229 AI generated

Consensual anal intercourse followed by manual stimulation and oral sex does not constitute rape.

Case Number KKO VL:2026-229
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the prosecution's appeal regarding a charge of rape against a defendant who engaged in consensual anal intercourse with the complainant. The court found that the complainant voluntarily participated in the sexual acts, including subsequent manual stimulation and oral sex, thereby negating the essential element of non-consent required for rape. Consequently, the court ruled that the defendant's actions, while potentially violating other laws, did not meet the legal definition of rape under Finnish law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Seksuaalilaki 1996; 1996:592: 1. Consensual sexual intercourse, including anal penetration, does not constitute rape when the complainant voluntarily participates in the act.

Keywords

AI generated
consensual sexual intercourse rape definition non-consent element sexual assault voluntary participation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sexual Offences Act 1996
1996:592
AI generated
kko-leave_2026_210
Sexual intercourse without explicit consent constitutes rape; prior sexual history does not imply implied consent.
kko-leave_2025_33
Supreme Court held that the leave-to-appeal certificate description does not bind the court or limit case handling.
kko-leave_2025_27
Supreme Court allows appeal regarding use of prior statement as evidence in sexual assault case.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2026:3
Supreme Court dismisses rape charge due to insufficient evidence of non-consensual sexual contact.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:91
Supreme Court rejects probation for rape where victim's unconscious state due to intoxication or fatigue was exploited.

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

Vastaaja oli asianomistajan laskettua housunsa lyönyt asianomistajaa tämän

suostumuksella pakaroihin. Tämän jälkeen vastaaja oli hieronut käsin asianomistajan

pakaroita ja ollut tähän kaksi kertaa oraalisessa sukupuoliyhteydessä.

Kysymys siitä, oliko asianomistaja ilmaissut osallistuvansa sukupuoliyhteyksiin

vapaaehtoisesti ja oliko vastaaja syyllistynyt raiskaukseen.

Valituslupakortti sisältää kuvauksen siitä kysymyksestä, johon liittyen asiassa on

myönnetty valituslupa. Sen sisältö ei sido korkeinta oikeutta eikä rajoita asian

käsittelyä siltä osin kuin valituslupa on myönnetty.