Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1907/2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows retrial for hunting offense where police authorized killing injured animal.

Case Number KKO 1907/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted a retrial request based on a new fact regarding the police authorization to kill an injured animal. The lower court had dismissed the appeal, holding that the case involved hunting rather than authorized animal termination. The court ruled that the appellate court failed to consider the police authorization as a material fact distinguishing the nature of the act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

25 a luku 11 §: A retrial must be granted when new facts emerge that could alter the outcome of the proceedings, such as police authorization for terminating an injured animal instead of hunting.

Keywords

AI generated
hunting offense police authorization injured animal termination retrial request new facts appellate procedure criminal liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
25 a luku 11 §
AI generated
appeal_1971_vaasa__284
Hunting a reindeer on a pasture is not hunting; shooting a domestic reindeer is not a crime.
appeal_1986_rovaniemi__617
Hunting offense dismissed for hunting dog; penalty upheld for driving motorbike with hunting gear off-road.
kko-precedent_2016_95
Supreme Court dismisses gross poaching charge; defendants took no conscious risk of bear attack.
kko-other_2019_1430
Supreme Court allows parole application where fraud conviction does not preclude release due to changed circumstances.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2021:30
Supreme Court orders retrial for hunting case where defendant requested personal hearing on serious negligence charge.

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

Käräjäoikeus oli tuominnut H:n metsästysrikoksesta 40 päiväsakkoon ja määrännyt hänet kolmen vuoden pituiseen metsästyskieltoon. H oli kiistänyt syytteen, koska kysymys ei ollut pyyntitarkoituksessa tapahtuneesta jäljittämisestä ja metsästyksestä, vaan poliisin luvalla suurriistavirka-aputoimijana toimeenpannusta loukkaantuneen eläimen lopettamisesta. Hovioikeus ei ollut myöntänyt H:lle jatkokäsittelylupaa.

Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksestä ilmenevillä perusteilla katsottiin, että hovioikeuden olisi tullut myöntää jatkokäsittelylupa tarkistusperusteella.

OK 25 a luku 11 §