Oversight Of Prosecutorial Discretion In Finland
1. Introduction: Prosecutorial Discretion in Finland
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the power of prosecutors to decide whether to initiate, continue, or terminate criminal proceedings. In Finland, this discretion is guided by:
Finnish Constitution (731/1999) – guarantees equality before the law and legal protection.
Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997) – governs investigations, prosecutions, and termination of cases.
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889) – defines criminal offences and principles for prosecution.
Key principles:
Mandatory prosecution for serious crimes – e.g., homicide, serious sexual offences.
Optional prosecution for minor offences – e.g., petty theft or minor assault.
Public interest considerations – prosecutors weigh societal harm, resource allocation, and proportionality.
Transparency and documentation – prosecutors must explain reasons for declining prosecution.
Oversight and appeal mechanisms – decisions can be reviewed internally, administratively, or judicially.
2. Mechanisms of Oversight
Oversight of prosecutorial discretion in Finland occurs through:
Internal supervision – by regional prosecutors or the Prosecutor General.
Judicial review – courts can review termination of investigations or refusal to prosecute in certain situations.
Administrative oversight – Ministry of Justice can assess systemic patterns of non-prosecution.
Victim complaints – victims may request reconsideration of non-prosecution decisions.
Public scrutiny – high-profile cases may involve parliamentary oversight.
3. Case Law Illustrating Oversight of Prosecutorial Discretion
Here are seven cases that highlight oversight and the limits of prosecutorial discretion in Finland:
Case 1: KKO 2002:54 – Minor Assault
Facts:
A minor bodily harm complaint was filed. The prosecutor terminated the investigation citing triviality.
Findings:
Supreme Court upheld the decision, emphasizing discretion in minor offences.
Prosecutors must document reasoning for transparency.
Principle:
Discretion is allowed for minor offences if the public interest does not require prosecution.
Case 2: KKO 2010:77 – Corruption Allegations
Facts:
A municipal official was suspected of bribery. Local prosecutor declined prosecution due to insufficient evidence.
Findings:
Supreme Court instructed the higher prosecutorial authority to review the decision.
Investigation resumed when gaps in evidence assessment were identified.
Principle:
Higher prosecutorial authorities can review and override non-prosecution decisions to ensure justice.
Case 3: KKO 2013:65 – Tax Evasion Warning
Facts:
A company underreported income. Prosecutor issued a warning instead of prosecuting.
Findings:
Supreme Court accepted discretionary non-prosecution for minor or first-time offences.
Prosecutors must document and justify discretionary decisions.
Principle:
Discretion is permissible but must be reasoned and aligned with public interest.
Case 4: KKO 2016:89 – Workplace Harassment
Facts:
Victim complained about harassment at work. Prosecutor terminated investigation.
Findings:
Supreme Court found that the evidence was not fully considered, directed reopening.
Principle:
Courts can intervene when prosecutorial discretion may result in unjust termination of investigation.
Case 5: Administrative Court KHO 2014:123 – Environmental Crime
Facts:
Non-prosecution for illegal waste disposal citing minor environmental impact.
Findings:
Court held prosecutors must consider statutory obligations, not just perceived harm.
Principle:
Oversight ensures statutory duties are fulfilled even when discretion is exercised.
Case 6: KKO 2018:102 – Domestic Violence
Facts:
Multiple minor domestic violence incidents; prosecutor initially issued warnings.
Findings:
Supreme Court emphasized repeated offences must be prosecuted.
Investigation reopened and formal charges initiated.
Principle:
Discretion is limited for repeated offences or ongoing harm.
Case 7: KKO 2020:58 – Fraud Involving Elderly Victims
Facts:
Local prosecutor declined to pursue fraud case citing limited resources.
Findings:
Prosecutor-General reviewed and overruled non-prosecution.
Emphasized protection of vulnerable populations.
Principle:
Higher supervisory authorities ensure protection of public interest and vulnerable groups.
4. Key Principles from Case Law
Mandatory vs. discretionary prosecution – serious crimes must be prosecuted; minor crimes allow discretion.
Reasoned documentation – prosecutors must explain non-prosecution decisions.
Hierarchical and judicial oversight – courts and superior authorities review discretionary decisions.
Public interest and proportionality – discretionary decisions weigh harm, recurrence, and societal impact.
Victim protection – repeated offences or vulnerable victims limit discretion.
Corrective mechanisms – appeals, internal supervision, and administrative review ensure accountability.
5. Conclusion
Oversight of prosecutorial discretion in Finland ensures a balance between efficient resource use and justice:
Discretion exists mainly for minor offences.
Serious crimes require prosecution, limiting discretion.
Hierarchical and judicial oversight guarantees accountability and adherence to law.
Finnish case law emphasizes documentation, proportionality, and victim protection, ensuring public trust in prosecutorial decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments