Laura Halminen, at the Supreme Court in Helsinki, Finland. Helsinki District Court found two Helsingin Sanomat journalists, Tuomo Pietiläinen ans Laura Halminen, guilty of disclosing state secrets in relation to an article published by the newspaper in 2017. Photo: Vesa Moilanen / Lehtikuva
- Previous Article Finnish bulletproof vest supplier under criminal investigation over Ukraine deal
- Next Article Complaints filed over internship of President Stubb’s son
The Helsinki Court of Appeal has convicted two journalists for disclosing and attempting to disclose national security secrets in connection with a 2017 article on Finland’s military intelligence operations.
Tuomo Pietiläinen received a four-month suspended prison sentence. Laura Halminen was fined the equivalent of 80 day fines. Both were charged in relation to an article published in Helsingin Sanomat on 16 December 2017, which revealed information about the Finnish Defence Forces’ Viestikoekeskus signal intelligence unit.
The court also found them guilty of attempting to disclose classified information through unpublished article drafts related to the same subject. The pair denied all charges.
The third defendant, Kalle Silfverberg, who served as a supervising editor at the time, was acquitted.
Prosecutors had sought suspended prison sentences for all three on grounds that the content posed a threat to Finland’s external security and breached secrecy laws.
The appeal court stated that the journalists disclosed information classified for national security reasons and concluded that their actions did not serve public interest in a manner that would justify limiting Finland’s external security protections.
Unlike a lower court ruling in 2023, which only found them guilty of publishing classified information, the appeal court extended the conviction to include attempted disclosure of details that never appeared in print.
The court ruled that the publication and attempted publication presented a concrete risk to state security and therefore outweighed protections typically granted under freedom of speech. The judgment emphasised that freedom of expression does not extend to revealing national defence secrets.
“Freedom of expression did not give the defendants the right to disclose or attempt to disclose these security secrets,” the court stated. “The restriction was necessary and proportionate in securing the legitimate interest of national security.”
The court reaffirmed an earlier order that Helsingin Sanomat must remove the original article from its website.
Erja Yläjärvi, editor-in-chief of Helsingin Sanomat, said the ruling sets a troubling precedent for journalism, particularly the idea that unpublished material can lead to criminal liability.
“The article concerned intelligence laws affecting all Finns. The information was years old and did not compromise national security. The Defence Forces knew about the article in advance,” she said.
Defence lawyers said the decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Timo Ylikantola, representing Pietiläinen, called the expansion of the conviction to include article drafts “a matter that could significantly affect investigative journalism.”
Ylikantola argued that the ruling makes it harder for journalists to assess the legality of reporting on sensitive topics, particularly when potential state secrecy is involved.
Kai Kotiranta, representing Halminen, also questioned the clarity of legal thresholds. “Editorial staff need to know at what point the preparation of material crosses into criminal conduct,” he said.
The 2017 article drew from documents linked to military intelligence operations. While some of the information was publicly accessible, both courts found key elements originated from classified Defence Forces materials.
The original investigation began following a criminal complaint filed by the Defence Forces on the day the article was published. The military acted as the complainant throughout the legal proceedings.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that although the publication decisions were made by senior editorial staff, the journalists remained liable for their involvement in preparing the material.
Kaius Niemi, the paper’s former editor-in-chief at the time, was not charged. Sanoma Media Finland, which publishes Helsingin Sanomat, had sought to overturn the removal order of the article but the court upheld the deletion.
The case marks a rare instance in Finnish legal history of journalists being convicted under treason-related offences for reporting on national defence matters.
HT
- Previous Article Finnish bulletproof vest supplier under criminal investigation over Ukraine deal
- Next Article Complaints filed over internship of President Stubb’s son
Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi
