Helsinki court official faces false claims over Extinction Rebellion ruling

A social media campaign targeting a Helsinki district court official over a ruling in an Extinction Rebellion protest case is based on false claims, the court’s chief judge has confirmed.

Chief Judge Sirpa Pakkala of Helsinki District Court told public broadcaster Yle that the accusations against the court notary—who dismissed charges against two Extinction Rebellion protesters—are unfounded. The case has sparked widespread criticism online, including from lawmakers.

“This social media campaign is an extremely regrettable example of the challenging conditions under which district judges and other legal decision-makers sometimes have to operate,” Pakkala said.

The controversy began after the court dismissed charges of disobedience against two protesters in early April, ruling that police lacked authority to issue removal orders in that specific demonstration. While most Extinction Rebellion cases have resulted in convictions, Pakkala stressed that each ruling is based on the evidence and circumstances of the individual case.

Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat reported that the decision was made by a trainee court notary, prompting an AI-generated claim on X (formerly Twitter) that the official had previously served as Extinction Rebellion’s media spokesperson. The false assertion, which linked to an unrelated article, was shared by MP Atte Kaleva (National Coalition Party) and others.

Pakkala confirmed the claim was baseless, adding that no concerns about the notary’s impartiality had arisen. She noted that while senior judges initially handled Extinction Rebellion cases, the volume of similar rulings now allows notaries to take on such cases under supervision.

“In this instance, the notary consulted with their supervising judge both before and after the hearing,” Pakkala said, declining to comment on the legal merits of the ruling itself. The decision is not yet final, as prosecutors have appealed.

Pakkala emphasized her role in supporting the notary, who has faced online harassment. “If anyone has objections to the ruling, the appropriate forum is the Court of Appeal,” she said.