Parliamentary Ombudsman urges police to evaluate and develop its operational practices with regard to demonstrations

Fifteen persons complained about the actions of the police at Töölöntori square in Helsinki on Independence Day 2023. In many of the complaints, the police were criticised for largely the same issues. Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen decided to investigate the matter as an own initiative. 

According to the assessment made by the police, the Helsinki without Nazis (HWN) demonstration could not be organised at Töölöntori at the same time with the 612 torchlight procession, which the police had already been notified of earlier. The Ombudsman considered this assessment justified, and according to law, the first one to notify the police has the priority. By law, the police cannot prohibit a demonstration in advance. In this respect, the formulation of the decision made by the police on the matter before the Independence Day was slightly imprudent, and it was problematic that another place for convening was not already indicated for the HWN demonstration at the time. 

In spite of the police’s decision, hundreds of people convened at Töölöntori for the HWN demonstration. According to the Ombudsman, the police acted within its discretionary powers when this demonstration was ordered to end and the decision to clear Töölöntori of demonstrators was made.  

According to the report received, the police officers did not use coercive measures other than pushing and pressing, and there was no knowledge of anyone having been hurt because of the police actions. As for the use of horses, it was discovered that in one case, a police horse seemed to knock down a demonstrator who had been standing still. According to the Ombudsman, this is not acceptable. The ombudsman was also not convinced that riding horses into the crowd would have been without risks. According to the Ombudsman, the National Police Board should assess whether the use of police horses should be defined as use of force and whether instructions for the use of police horses should be issued. 

The Ombudsman also considered that it would have been justified to stop the traffic at the scene for a few minutes at the final stage of clearing Töölöntori so that the crowd could have been safely removed from the road.

With regard to apprehensions, it was obvious that the police officer who made the decision in each individual case was not recorded appropriately in all of the cases, and there was also otherwise room for improvement in the recording. The Ombudsman emphasised that when it comes to deprivation of liberty, it must not remain unclear who made the decision.

The Ombudsman’s decision 8038/2023 and the statement of the Helsinki Police Department have been published in Finnish on the Ombudsman’s website www.oikeusasiamies.fi. 

Further information is available from Principal Legal Adviser Juha Haapamäki, tel. +358 9 432 3334.