Finland Times

Government counsellor Ulla Mohell told the Finnish news agency STT that pre-trial detention is required until more credible and better supervised alternatives are found.

Finland currently uses a travel ban which is rarely used.

According to Mohell, who is also the chairman of the committee, alternatives are widely used elsewhere in Europe.

In addition, the number of pre-trial detainees has increased, and detention times have lengthened, said Mohell.

A large proportion of pre-trial detainees are foreigners.

“Alternatives exist for monitoring suspects moving between EU countries or back to their home country. But when we have no control over where they could go then we must use pre-trial detention,” she said.

Alternatives come into question when, for example, there is no threat of absconding or danger.

An enhanced travel ban would apply at the district court stage, whereas investigative confinement would apply at the stage where a first-degree judgement was obtained, for example, the appeals stage.

That alternative then should apply only to judgments of less than two years’ imprisonment but would not apply to more serious crimes.

The Ministry of Justice committee will finish its report in about one month’s time.