The Relation between the Public Prosecutor and the Police
Chapter I
The Relation between the Public Prosecutor and the Police
The operation of the police as a whole is supervised by the Ministry of the Interior.
The Ministry of the Interior's Police Department acts as the Supreme Police Command. It manages and develops police activities, makes decisions on national strategies, and revises regulations within the authority of the police.
The exercise of police powers is subject to close supervision, not only by senior police officials, but also by the Ombudsman of Parliament and the Chancellor of Justice. They can reprimand a police officer for unlawful conduct or neglect of duties, or bring criminal charges for illegal actions.
The pre-trial investigation
Carrying out investigations and clearing up criminal offences – pre-trial investigation – are tasks of the police. A pre-trial investigation is led by a police officer as the head of the inquiry. The head of the inquiry is under a duty to keep the prosecutor informed and to follow the instructions given by him or her. The role of the prosecutor is co-operative. But in this co-operative role he also bears partial responsibility for running the investigation properly.
Conversely, the prosecutor has the right, and is under the duty, to direct the pre-trial investigation in order to secure an appropriate consideration of charges and an expeditious main hearing. However, a prosecutor will act as the head of the inquiry only in cases where the suspect is a police officer. Then, the pre-trial investigation will be led by a specifically nominated public prosecutor and the investigation is made by police officers outside the suspect’s own police district.
The responsibility for a proper running of a criminal investigation is in the first place ensured by the head of the inquiry. He is accountable to his superiors in the police organisation.
The police are, as a rule, required to notify the district prosecutor for each criminal case that they investigate. Such notification does not, however, need to be given in straightforward cases. Section 15 Criminal Investigations Act states: The police shall inform the prosecutor of an offence which has been reported to it for investigation, when someone is suspected of the offence. However, the prosecutor need not be informed if the matter is simple.
The Ministry of Interior has given more detailed instructions regarding the crimes that need not to be reported. Simple cases not requiring reporting may include cases such as theft, damage to property, drink driving, assault or traffic offences. Specific circumstances may also demand reporting in these cases. These may include: exceptional methods of giving proof like DNA etc. or need of legal expertise for example in interpreting the application of confiscation.
The prosecutor has a general duty to ensure that investigations have been carried out properly and according to the law. Section 15 Criminal Investigations Act states that on the request of the prosecutor, the police shall carry out a criminal investigation or further investigations, as well as comply with the instructions issued by the prosecutor for the securing of the objectives of the criminal investigation.
The prosecutor may ask for specific investigations, and he may refuse to use certain material he finds unreliable. In some respect the prosecutor performs here similar tasks as an investigating judge in some countries. However, the prosecutor does not act as a separate control agency. It is stressed that these tasks are a part of co-operation in pre-investigation. On this point the new law in 1998 increased and strengthened the role of the prosecutor. However, at the same time the role of the police and the prosecutor vis-à-vis each other have became a bit unclear. In practice, this evidently varies in different parts of the country.
The norms give the prosecutor a freedom to choose: if he chooses to do so, the prosecutor may remain quite passive during the investigations. On the other hand, the prosecutor has the right to ask for further investigations, if needed.
Also other parties may present requests: Sect. 12 Criminal Investigations Act states that questioning and other investigation measures requested by a party shall be carried out if that party shows a possibility of these measures having an effect on the case, provided that the expenses so incurred are not disproportional to the type of the case.
Special investigation methods
The use of investigation and coercive measures is basically in the hands of the police. These measures include apprehension, arrest, seizure, and search. Decisions to use these measures are taken by the head of the inquiry and no consultation with the prosecutor is required. This applies also to undercover agents and fake-transactions. Until 2001, the use of undercover agents and fake-transactions was not allowed. Now the use of so-called evidence provocation with fake-transactions can be permitted. Evidence provocation applies for example, when a police officer asks a drug user to buy narcotics from a drug dealer in order to reveal his identity, to apprehend him, to get knowledge of underground criminal networks and to confiscate the narcotics before they are sold to the market. Evidence provocation is allowed both in criminal investigation and in prevention of serious crime (such as drug trafficking, selling of illegal weapons and aggravated selling of stolen property). Undercover agents can only be used in investigations concerning very serious crimes, which are explicitly listed in law. An undercover agent may not enter anyone’s permanent home when he has not specifically been invited. Undercover agents can be given a new identity after the criminal proceedings. They cannot be used as anonymous witnesses in court. Decisions on undercover agents and fake-transactions are made by senior police officers. The Ombudsman of the Parliament receives an annual report on the use of these measures and oversees the use of them. As yet, there is practically no experience with undercover agents and fake-transactions in Finland.
Another group of coercive measures requires a decision by a court. These include detention, restraint on alienation or seizure for escrow, and telecommunications interception/monitoring and technical surveillance. The use of these measures in certain cases also requires co-operation with the prosecutor.
The police have to inform the prosecutor before handing out the request for detention or a travel ban. In both cases, the prosecutor may interfere and prevent the request.
Section 10 Coercive Measures Act states on detention request that during the criminal investigation, an officer vested with the power of arrest may request detention. Before a request is made, it shall be notified to the prosecutor, who may take it upon himself to decide whether the detention request is to be made. When the case has been sent to the prosecutor after the conclusion of the criminal investigation, the prosecutor may request detention. It also explicitly states that the court shall not order the detention of the defendant on its own initiative.
On the authority deciding on a travel ban, Section 3 Coercive Measures Act states that during any criminal investigation, an officer vested with the power of arrest may decide on a travel ban. Before the decision is made, it shall be notified to the prosecutor, who may take it upon himself to decide on the travel ban. After the bringing of charges, the court shall decide.
Detention and travel ban are often alternatives. The court may subject the defendant to a travel ban only upon the request of the prosecutor. Where a request for the detention of the defendant has been submitted, the court may also subject him to a travel ban instead of detention.
The prosecutor has general powers to institute criminal investigations. However, the police may also start investigations on their own initiative.
The prosecutor has no power to finish the investigation without the co-operation of the police. Section 4 Criminal Investigations Act gives the prosecutor a right to end the criminal investigation on the order of the head of investigation or to decide that the criminal investigation is to be discontinued, if he would waive prosecution and if there is no important private or public interest which makes criminal investigation necessary.
The question, whether the prosecutor may order investigations to continue, even if the head of the investigations disagrees, is disputed. The majority of the authors seem to oppose this option.
The Relation between the Public Prosecutor and the Police
The operation of the police as a whole is supervised by the Ministry of the Interior.
The Ministry of the Interior's Police Department acts as the Supreme Police Command. It manages and develops police activities, makes decisions on national strategies, and revises regulations within the authority of the police.
The exercise of police powers is subject to close supervision, not only by senior police officials, but also by the Ombudsman of Parliament and the Chancellor of Justice. They can reprimand a police officer for unlawful conduct or neglect of duties, or bring criminal charges for illegal actions.
The pre-trial investigation
Carrying out investigations and clearing up criminal offences – pre-trial investigation – are tasks of the police. A pre-trial investigation is led by a police officer as the head of the inquiry. The head of the inquiry is under a duty to keep the prosecutor informed and to follow the instructions given by him or her. The role of the prosecutor is co-operative. But in this co-operative role he also bears partial responsibility for running the investigation properly.
Conversely, the prosecutor has the right, and is under the duty, to direct the pre-trial investigation in order to secure an appropriate consideration of charges and an expeditious main hearing. However, a prosecutor will act as the head of the inquiry only in cases where the suspect is a police officer. Then, the pre-trial investigation will be led by a specifically nominated public prosecutor and the investigation is made by police officers outside the suspect’s own police district.
The responsibility for a proper running of a criminal investigation is in the first place ensured by the head of the inquiry. He is accountable to his superiors in the police organisation.
The police are, as a rule, required to notify the district prosecutor for each criminal case that they investigate. Such notification does not, however, need to be given in straightforward cases. Section 15 Criminal Investigations Act states: The police shall inform the prosecutor of an offence which has been reported to it for investigation, when someone is suspected of the offence. However, the prosecutor need not be informed if the matter is simple.
The Ministry of Interior has given more detailed instructions regarding the crimes that need not to be reported. Simple cases not requiring reporting may include cases such as theft, damage to property, drink driving, assault or traffic offences. Specific circumstances may also demand reporting in these cases. These may include: exceptional methods of giving proof like DNA etc. or need of legal expertise for example in interpreting the application of confiscation.
The prosecutor has a general duty to ensure that investigations have been carried out properly and according to the law. Section 15 Criminal Investigations Act states that on the request of the prosecutor, the police shall carry out a criminal investigation or further investigations, as well as comply with the instructions issued by the prosecutor for the securing of the objectives of the criminal investigation.
The prosecutor may ask for specific investigations, and he may refuse to use certain material he finds unreliable. In some respect the prosecutor performs here similar tasks as an investigating judge in some countries. However, the prosecutor does not act as a separate control agency. It is stressed that these tasks are a part of co-operation in pre-investigation. On this point the new law in 1998 increased and strengthened the role of the prosecutor. However, at the same time the role of the police and the prosecutor vis-à-vis each other have became a bit unclear. In practice, this evidently varies in different parts of the country.
The norms give the prosecutor a freedom to choose: if he chooses to do so, the prosecutor may remain quite passive during the investigations. On the other hand, the prosecutor has the right to ask for further investigations, if needed.
Also other parties may present requests: Sect. 12 Criminal Investigations Act states that questioning and other investigation measures requested by a party shall be carried out if that party shows a possibility of these measures having an effect on the case, provided that the expenses so incurred are not disproportional to the type of the case.
Special investigation methods
The use of investigation and coercive measures is basically in the hands of the police. These measures include apprehension, arrest, seizure, and search. Decisions to use these measures are taken by the head of the inquiry and no consultation with the prosecutor is required. This applies also to undercover agents and fake-transactions. Until 2001, the use of undercover agents and fake-transactions was not allowed. Now the use of so-called evidence provocation with fake-transactions can be permitted. Evidence provocation applies for example, when a police officer asks a drug user to buy narcotics from a drug dealer in order to reveal his identity, to apprehend him, to get knowledge of underground criminal networks and to confiscate the narcotics before they are sold to the market. Evidence provocation is allowed both in criminal investigation and in prevention of serious crime (such as drug trafficking, selling of illegal weapons and aggravated selling of stolen property). Undercover agents can only be used in investigations concerning very serious crimes, which are explicitly listed in law. An undercover agent may not enter anyone’s permanent home when he has not specifically been invited. Undercover agents can be given a new identity after the criminal proceedings. They cannot be used as anonymous witnesses in court. Decisions on undercover agents and fake-transactions are made by senior police officers. The Ombudsman of the Parliament receives an annual report on the use of these measures and oversees the use of them. As yet, there is practically no experience with undercover agents and fake-transactions in Finland.
Another group of coercive measures requires a decision by a court. These include detention, restraint on alienation or seizure for escrow, and telecommunications interception/monitoring and technical surveillance. The use of these measures in certain cases also requires co-operation with the prosecutor.
The police have to inform the prosecutor before handing out the request for detention or a travel ban. In both cases, the prosecutor may interfere and prevent the request.
Section 10 Coercive Measures Act states on detention request that during the criminal investigation, an officer vested with the power of arrest may request detention. Before a request is made, it shall be notified to the prosecutor, who may take it upon himself to decide whether the detention request is to be made. When the case has been sent to the prosecutor after the conclusion of the criminal investigation, the prosecutor may request detention. It also explicitly states that the court shall not order the detention of the defendant on its own initiative.
On the authority deciding on a travel ban, Section 3 Coercive Measures Act states that during any criminal investigation, an officer vested with the power of arrest may decide on a travel ban. Before the decision is made, it shall be notified to the prosecutor, who may take it upon himself to decide on the travel ban. After the bringing of charges, the court shall decide.
Detention and travel ban are often alternatives. The court may subject the defendant to a travel ban only upon the request of the prosecutor. Where a request for the detention of the defendant has been submitted, the court may also subject him to a travel ban instead of detention.
The prosecutor has general powers to institute criminal investigations. However, the police may also start investigations on their own initiative.
The prosecutor has no power to finish the investigation without the co-operation of the police. Section 4 Criminal Investigations Act gives the prosecutor a right to end the criminal investigation on the order of the head of investigation or to decide that the criminal investigation is to be discontinued, if he would waive prosecution and if there is no important private or public interest which makes criminal investigation necessary.
The question, whether the prosecutor may order investigations to continue, even if the head of the investigations disagrees, is disputed. The majority of the authors seem to oppose this option.
