Finnish police investigations closed by unauthorized officers, deputy chancellor of justice finds

Preliminary investigations into domestic violence cases at Helsinki and Ostrobothnia police departments were improperly closed by officers lacking authority, Finland’s deputy chancellor of justice has ruled.

The findings, published Monday, reveal that decisions to terminate investigations were made in the police case management system by personnel other than the assigned lead investigators. Both cases involved domestic violence where victims had not demanded prosecution—though the deputy chancellor clarified that such offenses do not qualify as victim-reported crimes under Finnish law, meaning investigations cannot be dismissed on those grounds alone.

Deputy Chancellor Petri Martikainen’s decision emphasizes that while lead investigators may delegate preparation of case closure documents to other officers, only the lead investigator holds the legal authority to finalize and approve the decision in the system.

The errors surfaced during a broader 2025 review by the deputy chancellor’s office, which examined dozens of domestic violence investigations nationwide. In Helsinki and Ostrobothnia, the improper closures were compounded by a systemic flaw: the police case management system, Patja, permitted non-authorized personnel to log decisions under a lead investigator’s credentials—sometimes without the investigator ever reviewing the case.

Finland’s parliamentary ombudsman had flagged similar risks in December 2023, warning that the system’s design could enable decisions to be made by officers lacking legal authority. Police Board guidelines, updated in 2023, explicitly prohibit delegation of final case decisions, though preparatory work (e.g., drafting closure documents) may be assigned to others.

In response to the findings, the Police Board confirmed to the deputy chancellor that technical fixes have been proposed to restrict case closure permissions in Patja to lead investigators only. Both police departments involved corrected their decisions retroactively after the errors were identified.