Role Of The Prosecutor In Finnish Criminal Justice
ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR IN FINNISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE
In Finland, the prosecutor (syyttäjä) is a central actor in criminal justice. The system is inquisitorial with strong prosecutorial discretion and operates under principles of legality and objectivity.
The key aspects of the prosecutor’s role are:
Initiation of criminal proceedings
Investigation oversight
Decision to charge or dismiss
Representation in court
Guiding the investigation and safeguarding evidence
Ensuring legality, impartiality, and proportionality
1. Initiation of Criminal Proceedings
In Finland, criminal proceedings generally begin with a police investigation, but the prosecutor decides whether to bring charges.
For minor offenses, the police may act alone, but prosecution still supervises legality.
The prosecutor ensures official investigation of suspected crimes (RL 2:1).
Case 1 — KKO 2010:50 — Prosecutor’s Discretion in Filing Charges
Facts:
A defendant was accused of embezzlement. The police investigation produced evidence, but the prosecutor initially decided not to prosecute, citing weak evidence.
Holding:
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the prosecutor abused discretion. The Court emphasized that prosecutors have broad discretion but must act objectively and in accordance with law. The decision not to prosecute was upheld.
Importance:
Confirms prosecutorial discretion in Finland.
Reinforces legality and objectivity as boundaries of discretion.
2. Investigation Oversight
The prosecutor supervises the police investigation.
They authorize measures, such as arrests, searches, and interrogations.
Prosecutors can request additional evidence or terminate improper investigative actions.
Case 2 — KKO 2012:76 — Supervising Police Investigation
Facts:
Police conducted a search without prosecutor approval. Evidence was collected and used in trial.
Holding:
KKO ruled that prosecutor supervision is mandatory for certain invasive measures. Evidence obtained without authorization was inadmissible.
Importance:
Emphasizes the prosecutor’s role as a legal safeguard.
Shows prosecutors can directly affect admissibility of evidence.
3. Decision to Charge or Dismiss (Charge Discretion)
Prosecutors decide whether to bring charges or dismiss a case, particularly in minor crimes.
Even with sufficient evidence, prosecutors may consider public interest (RL 1:2).
Cases can be dismissed for lack of gravity or minor social harm.
Case 3 — KKO 2015:88 — Dismissal of Minor Offenses
Facts:
A shoplifter with minimal value items was investigated. Prosecutor decided not to prosecute.
Holding:
Court upheld the decision, noting that prosecutors may consider social interest, proportionality, and resource allocation.
Importance:
Shows discretion balances legal duty with efficiency and fairness.
Reinforces public interest as part of prosecutorial considerations.
4. Representation in Court
Prosecutors present the case in trial, including evidence and legal arguments.
Their role is objective, unlike adversarial systems where they “win” for the state.
Must present both incriminating and exonerating evidence.
Case 4 — KKO 2007:92 — Obligation to Present Exculpatory Evidence
Facts:
During a murder trial, prosecutor withheld evidence that could benefit the accused.
Holding:
KKO held this was a violation of the prosecutor’s duty of objectivity. The trial was overturned.
Importance:
Establishes the principle of prosecutorial neutrality.
Finnish prosecutors are not advocates but guardians of legality.
Case 5 — KKO 2011:64 — Prosecutor Must Objectively Present Circumstantial Evidence
Facts:
A fraud case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutor emphasized certain facts but neglected contradictory evidence.
Holding:
Supreme Court emphasized that prosecutors must disclose evidence affecting guilt or innocence, including circumstances that weaken the case.
Importance:
Reinforces duty to seek justice, not conviction.
Highlights difference from strictly adversarial systems.
5. Guiding Investigation and Evidence Management
Prosecutors can request additional forensic tests, expert statements, or witness interviews.
They evaluate admissibility and sufficiency of evidence before trial.
Case 6 — KKO 2014:33 — Prosecutor’s Role in Expert Evidence
Facts:
During a homicide investigation, police submitted an incomplete forensic report. Prosecutor requested additional forensic analysis.
Holding:
KKO held that prosecutors must actively ensure that evidence is sufficient, reliable, and legally obtained. This contributed to a fair trial.
Importance:
Demonstrates proactive role in investigation quality control.
Ensures the accused’s rights are preserved.
6. Ensuring Legality, Impartiality, and Proportionality
Prosecutors monitor compliance with Criminal Code provisions, procedural law, and human rights.
They must balance social interest with fairness, particularly in minor offenses or plea negotiations.
Case 7 — KKO 2016:45 — Proportionality in Charging Decisions
Facts:
Defendant committed multiple minor traffic offenses. Prosecutor initially considered separate charges for each violation.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that charging all violations separately would be disproportionate. Prosecutor acted correctly by combining or dismissing minor charges.
Importance:
Highlights discretion tempered by proportionality and fairness.
Shows how prosecutors manage efficient and equitable justice.
7. Role in Appeal and Supervision
Prosecutors may appeal lower court decisions or participate in appeal proceedings.
They also supervise compliance with procedural law during trials and appeals.
Case 8 — KKO 2018:12 — Prosecutor in Appeals
Facts:
Lower court acquitted defendant due to procedural error. Prosecutor appealed seeking a retrial.
Holding:
Court emphasized that prosecutors can legitimately appeal to correct errors or legal misinterpretations, but must not seek appeal solely for punitive purposes.
Importance:
Reinforces prosecutor as legal guardian in appellate process.
Balances duty to justice and duty to the state.
SUMMARY OF THE ROLE OF PROSECUTOR (With Case References)
| Role | Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Charge/No charge discretion | KKO 2010:50 | Broad discretion within legality |
| Oversight of investigation | KKO 2012:76 | Must supervise police actions |
| Dismiss minor cases | KKO 2015:88 | Consider proportionality and public interest |
| Objective trial presentation | KKO 2007:92 | Must disclose exculpatory evidence |
| Present circumstantial evidence | KKO 2011:64 | Must be neutral and balanced |
| Guide forensic evidence | KKO 2014:33 | Ensure sufficiency and reliability |
| Proportionality in charging | KKO 2016:45 | Avoid excessive charges |
| Role in appeal | KKO 2018:12 | Correct legal errors fairly |
Key Takeaways
Prosecutor is a guardian of legality, not merely a representative seeking conviction.
Broad discretion exists, but bounded by objectivity, proportionality, and law.
Supervision of police investigation is central to ensure legal compliance.
Trial duties require impartiality, disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and fairness.
Decision-making balances public interest, fairness, and proportionality.
RELATED Blog
comments