National Police Board reports to the Ministry of the Interior concerning the demonstration held on 3 October 2020

The Ministry of the Interior has requested the National Police Board to provide a report concerning firstly, the use of force by the police, and secondly, the police's obligation to manage order and safety during demonstrations. The request was related to the demonstration held by the Extinction Rebellion Finland (Elokapina) community in Helsinki on 3 October 2020.

The National Police Board has submitted its report to the Ministry today, on 8 October 2020. Helsinki Police Department gave a statement for the report as requested by the National Police Board. The full report by the National Police Board is available here (in Finnish): https://www.poliisi.fi/selvitykset/Poliisihallituksen_selvitys_20201008

Various matters related to the demonstration are being processed by the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The report of the National Police Board does not discuss any part of the 3 October events that is currently being assessed by these authorities.

Advice, requests and orders given by the police were not successful

It is the duty of the police to secure freedom of expression and, at the same time, the rights of other people as well. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to break the law. According to the statement by the Helsinki Police Department, the use of force related to the 3 October case took place in a situation where some of the demonstrators had stationed themselves in the busy Kaisaniemenkatu street, blocking all traffic. The police had received no advance information about the demonstrators’ plan to stop the traffic in the Unioninkatu and Kaisaniemenkatu streets. The demonstrators’ actions caused disruption and an obstruction of traffic as well as danger for the demonstrators and for the police officers carrying out their duties. The disruption of traffic also caused risks for the operations of rescue services. It should be noted that the police did not break off the demonstration at any point, and ensured the safety of the demonstration even after removing some of the demonstrators from the lane.

According to the statement given by the Helsinki Police Department, the situation reached a point where the police had for several hours used means such as giving advice, making requests and giving orders, but the desired result was not being achieved. Physical removal of demonstrators to the sidewalk by carrying them was also no longer leading to the desired result, as there were no resources for transporting each person who had neglected to follow the orders of the police, and the use of force when carrying or detaching the demonstrators, who had chained themselves together, could have resulted in physical injuries. The leader of the police operation approved the use of O.C. spray as the mildest available means of force to disperse the crowd. Before using the spray, the police had ensured that the circumstances were appropriate for its use and that the application of the spray was limited to a designated group of demonstrators. The police had warned the demonstrators that the spray would be used, and given them five minutes to leave the lane. The factors on which the leader of the operation based their decision included the significant disruption of traffic, the available police resources, a consideration of alternative means, and the need to release police resources to manage any urgent operations. Alternative chains of events that could have followed if the police had let the situation continue unchanged also had to be assessed.

The police follow the principle of avoiding use of force

Use of force by the police is guided by human rights and the basic rights of individuals, the general principles set out in the Police Act, and the specific principles set out in the provisions concerning the use of force by the police; the latter include the necessity and justifiability of the use of force. The National Police Board has also issued an order concerning the use of protective and control equipment, and the training related to these.

The police base their operations on the principle of avoiding the use of force. Use of force may be necessary for example when a person does not follow the advice, requests or orders issued by the police. In such a case, the police will carry out their official task using the necessary and proportionate means of force. In all situations, the police strive to manage their duties causing minimal harm, with attention to the safety of the target and any third parties.

“An appropriate means of force is selected based on a comprehensive assessment of the situation. For example, if mild methods such as advice, requests or orders have no impact, the least harmful but yet effective means of force may be applied to achieve the objective of the operation”, Deputy National Police Commissioner Sanna Heikinheimo from the National Police Board says.

Heikinheimo explains that there is no preset order in which the means of force or control equipment should be used. The use of firearms is the only method for which specific conditions of use have been provided in the Police Act.

“The police uses case-by-case consideration to select the mildest means of force that is justifiable and effective in that situation. This may mean that in some situations, the use of O.C spray may be chosen as the first means of force instead of any physical control methods such as carrying or moving a person”, Heikinheimo says.

The use of various control methods and means of force as well as the principles guiding their use are extensively addressed in the basic training of all police officers. Further training is organised by police units on a regular basis during the entire service career of the officers.

All police operations must be able to withstand critical assessment

The National Police Board calls for a broad perspective when assessing the actions of the police during the demonstration held on 3 October 2020. Comparison to the methods used at some earlier demonstrations is not simple, as the circumstances are different in each case.

“It is paramount for the police to conduct operations that are socially justified and able to withstand critical assessment. Therefore, it is also important that the case undergoes external review and that our operations are developed based on the review if necessary. The case demonstrates how important it is that we not only make decisions based on the law and regulations but are also able to justify those decisions openly, and that we actively participate in the discussions concerning our operations. The public image of our operations forms the basis for the exceptionally high trust that people in Finland have for the police forces. That trust is of vital importance for all our operations”, Heikinheimo says.