Finland’s Supreme Court has issued its first landmark precedent under the nation’s new consent-based rape law, ultimately acquitting a home care worker in a divided ruling that clarifies the high legal threshold for conviction. The historic 4-3 decision, handed down on Friday, establishes a guiding interpretation for all lower courts, emphasizing that a ‘reasonable doubt’ about voluntariness must result in an acquittal. This pivotal case tests the practical application of the legal reform that took effect at the start of 2023, shifting the definition of rape to focus on the absence of voluntary participation rather than the use of force or threats.
Testing a New Legal Standard
The case centered on events from May 2023, shortly after the new law came into force. A male home care worker was accused of rape by a female client whom he was assisting with daily chores while she was ill with COVID-19. According to the prosecutor’s account, the man began by massaging the woman’s shoulders and feet before moving to intimate areas over her clothes. The prosecution stated he then removed her trousers, inserted his fingers into her vagina, touched her bare breasts, and placed her hand on his genitals. Crucially, the prosecution alleged he penetrated her with his penis despite her saying ‘no.’ The defendant contested the entire account. He testified that the woman participated voluntarily, moved his hand to her breast herself, and affirmatively answered his repeated verbal questions about whether they should have sex. He also noted that after the encounter, he ran errands for her using her bank card and PIN, returning to her apartment.
The Court's Reasoning and Division
The Supreme Court’s majority concluded there was a ‘reasonable doubt’ about the defendant’s guilt, leading to the acquittal. The justices weighed the conflicting narratives and the available evidence. Key to the decision was the assessment of whether the sexual intercourse occurred without the woman’s voluntary participation, as defined by the new law. The court found the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to overturn the principle of in dubio pro reo – when in doubt, for the accused. The ruling was not unanimous, however. A significant minority of three justices dissented, indicating they would have upheld a conviction. This internal split within the Supreme Court highlights the legal complexity and societal weight of applying the consent-based framework to specific factual circumstances, where witness testimony and interpretation of events are paramount.
Context of the Legal Shift
This ruling provides the first judicial guidance on Section 4 of Chapter 20 of the Criminal Code, which was amended in 2023. The old law required proof that the perpetrator had used violence, threats, or that the victim was in a state of defenselessness. The reformed statute defines rape as a sexual act with a person who does not participate in it voluntarily. The change aimed to strengthen the legal protection of sexual integrity by focusing on the presence or absence of consent. Advocates for the reform argued the previous standard was outdated and placed an undue burden on victims. The Supreme Court’s task in this initial case was to interpret what constitutes sufficient proof of a lack of voluntary participation, setting a precedent that will influence how district and appellate courts handle hundreds of future cases.
A Landmark with Ongoing Scrutiny
As the first precedent, this Supreme Court decision is now the cornerstone for interpreting Finland’s consent-based rape law. Its detailed reasoning will be parsed by judges, lawyers, and advocacy groups for years to come. The narrow majority and the strong dissenting opinion ensure that the conversation around sexual violence, proof, and justice is far from over. The ruling does not challenge the validity of the consent principle itself but strictly defines its application in criminal procedure. The ultimate impact on conviction rates and the lived experience of the legal process for survivors will become clearer as more cases filtered through the district courts reach the appellate level, each tested against the standard set in this historic, and divisive, Friday decision.