Prosecutors’ emergency cry for legal problem: Even a firm evidence does not necessarily lead to punishment
Crimes|Prosecutors are afraid that suspects of crimes may not be obtained despite the favorable evidence.
The abstract is made by artificial intelligence and checked by man.
The Prosecutor’s Office warns that suspects may not be convicted of a legal problem. The threat is that a large number of crimes are not survived.
The problem applies to the equipment of the police. Last October, the European Court of Justice outlined that police must, in principle, apply for permission from the court or other independent governing body in advance for the purpose of investigating the content of the mobile phone. This is not the case in Finland.
The Ministry of Justice is preparing a legal reform in order to make the practice in line with the EU Court’s decision-making practice.
Prosecutors They are afraid that suspects of the crime may not be accused and convicted in court in the near future because of the legislative problem. This could happen despite the fact that there would be evidence of a crime against them.
The threat is that a large number of crimes may therefore be overcome, the Prosecutor’s Department states in a statement sent to the Ministry of Justice.
It is signed by the Prosecutor General Ari-Pekka Koivisto and state prosecutor Leena Metsäpelto.
Problem Applies to equipment searches made by police and other pre-investigating authorities. There, authorities investigate the content of cellular phones, computers and other devices for suspects and other persons.
Last October, the European Court of Justice outlined that police must, in principle, apply for permission from the court or other independent governing body in advance for the purpose of investigating the content of the mobile phone.
According to the EU Court of Justice, access to the information contained in the mobile phone may allow for accurate conclusions from the person’s private life. The question can be a very serious interference with fundamental rights.
In Finland, it is not shown in Finland as required by the EU Court. The search for equipment can be decided by a mere officer entitled to a detention, such as the investigator-in-law investigator.
The Ministry of Justice is currently preparing a legal reform to ensure that Finland’s practice is in accordance with the EU Court’s decision-making proceedings.
According to the draft law, the decision could be made in the future, but by way of derogation, the decision should generally be taken to the court for confirmation.
The court would accept or dismiss the investigation of the device. The pre -trial investigation authorities could only examine the contents of the equipment after the court’s confirmation.
Prosecutor According to the legal reform, it is necessary to implement the reform as soon as possible.
« The procedure in accordance with the applicable Coercive Measures Act is risky about whether the explanation obtained by the current device-finding procedure can be used as evidence in court and how long this is allowed. The case law is already inappropriate in this regard, » the Prosecutor’s Department states in its opinion.
Thus, prosecutors are worried that the offenders can be missed in practice. Then the victims may also be left without their rights.
The Prosecutor’s Office considers it evident that the EU Court of Justice could be interpreted in Finland’s current equipment investigations in Finland as contrary to EU law. Therefore, the display obtained by device detection is in danger of losing its meaning.
The prosecutor’s office also considers the threat to the fact that equipment searches may not be possible at all if the legislative reform is extended. Then a large number of crimes will not survive.
“The legislation should be corrected before we are in such an investigative stalemate,” the prosecutor’s service points out.
Ministry of Justice Has said he is trying to prepare the legal reform quickly, even this spring.
However, in the recently ended consultation round, critical considerations of the proposal rose, although the reform itself was widely considered necessary.
The Chancellor of Justice and several other commentators, in particular, were in particular for the fact that it would still decide on the detention of the equipment and the role of the court to confirm or reject the decision.
« Why would an arresting officer make a decision before the decision of the court if the purpose is to bring the matter to prior control of the court? What would be the significance of the decision of the official entitled to arrest before the court’s confirmation, » the Chancellor asks in his opinion.
For example, the Judicial Association, the Bar Association and the Customs believe that the law should be recorded in the law that the appointment of the device is decided by the request of a court arrest at the request of an official.
