Frequently asked questions about the new act on the treatment of persons in police custody

The Ministry of the Interior has been preparing a legislative reform that aims to clarify and update the legislation on the treatment of persons in police custody. In its reply to the government proposal on the partial reform of the act on the treatment of persons in police custody, Parliament requested that the Government prepare an overhaul of the act. In addition to this act, the legislative package also includes other statutes on the treatment of intoxicated persons, the placement and treatment of remand prisoners, the transport of prisoners and detention under the Aliens Act. Furthermore, the health and social services reform, for example, must be taken into account in the act on the treatment of persons in police custody.

The positions adopted by national actors in the oversight of legality and bodies that monitor international treaties (in particular the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT) show that there have been shortcomings in the supervision and security of custody facilities. The positions have also brought to the fore that more focus should be placed on the prevention of deaths in police custody, that the conditions of detention facilities and the implementation of the rights of those deprived of their liberty should be improved, and that there have been shortcomings in keeping the responsibility for investigation separate from the responsibility for custody in cases where when keeping those deprived of their liberty in police custody. In addition, there are differences in the procedures followed in the custody arrangements of persons in different custody facilities and police departments.

From the perspective of the custody facilities personnel, the current legislation does not adequately take into account the purpose of the police custody facilities and the diversity of different legal statuses of persons who have been deprived of their liberty on various grounds. The legislation should also give more consideration to specific features in the early stages of deprivation of liberty involving keeping persons in police custody.  The regulatory regime in custody-related decision-making and powers has also led to a wide range of ambiguities.

As is typical of overhauls of this kind, extensive amendments related to the custody and conditions of those deprived of their liberty are proposed to the statutes. The key issues in the proposal include the abolition of sole supervision, the requirement to separate the responsibility for investigation and the responsibility for custody, and making the responsibility for organising sobering-up treatment services clearer in legislation to improve the regional availability of these services. Another important objective of the reform is to ensure more harmonised procedures. The aim is to achieve this by requiring in the law that administrative guidance in key custody-related issues is made clearer.

There have been a large number of sole supervision cases in police custody facilities, i.e. where only one person has supervised the facilities and those who have lost their liberty. It is clear that this causes problems relating to the amount and quality of supervision and safety at work. In the supervision of the safety of persons, personal supervision cannot be fully replaced, for example by the use of technical equipment suitable for supervision. The differences in supervision practices in custody facilities have also been seen as a problem in supervision. 

By keeping the responsibility for investigation and the responsibility for custody separate, it is ultimately possible to ensure a fair trial. The actors in the oversight of legality and bodies that monitor international treaties take the view that if the responsibility for criminal investigation and the responsibility for the conditions and custody of those deprived of their liberty rest with the same party, those deprived of their liberty could be exposed to the risk of pressure or bribery. This applies not only to remand prisoners but also to other persons deprived of their liberty who have been placed in police custody. It also involves occupational safety issues related to order in the custody facilities. Clearer regulation on how to keep the responsibility for investigation and the responsibility for custody separate has been deemed necessary.

The law requires that when the police have apprehended persons for the purpose of protecting them because they are intoxicated, the police should endeavour to take them to a sobering-up unit or to another treatment facility, if they cannot be looked after in other ways. In many parts of Finland, sobering-up treatment services are not available, which means that such individuals have to be placed in police custody facilities. In his decision on deaths in police custody, the Parliamentary Ombudsman identified shortcomings in the organisation of sobering-up treatment services and in the regulation on the responsibility for organising such services, and took the view that the matter should be remedied in connection with the health and social services reform. 

The CPT has also regularly criticised Finland for the fact that intoxicated persons are still often kept in police custody facilities, even though the police and guards do not have adequate training for the task. In its report on the visit to Finland, the Committee considers it clear that the current arrangements are not sufficient to prevent the deaths of intoxicated persons in police custody facilities. In the working group's draft proposal, the responsibility for organising sobering-up treatment services would be specified so that the wellbeing services counties referred to in the health and social services reform would be responsible for organising the services in their area. This would make it possible to keep fewer intoxicated persons who are not disorderly in police custody facilities.