Recent revelations highlight serious concerns regarding the East Jutland Police’s handling of investigations and the impact of internal policies on legal proceedings. Current and former officers allege that a controversial guideline may compromise the integrity of criminal investigations.
Controversial Guidelines Unearthed
Denmark’s East Jutland Police are facing scrutiny following the publication of an internal guideline that has been described by experts as inappropriate and potentially detrimental to the pursuit of justice. According to a recent report by DR, the public broadcasting service, several officers have expressed concerns that they are being impeded from carrying out their primary duty: to investigate crimes effectively.
At the center of the controversy are allegations from thirty current and former police officers, who claim they have been involved in “washing cases,” or intentionally avoiding criminal charges to clear backlogged investigations. Specifically, ten of these officers revealed a protocol where they were instructed to refrain from formally charging suspects to alleviate case loads.
How the Method Operates
Officers describe various methods for sidestepping charges, such as simply not interviewing suspects if the intention is not to proceed with an indictment. They indicated that a formal charge would tie up a case, making it more challenging to close. Some officers report that they are only told to file charges if the suspect confesses to the crime.
Among those speaking out is Martin Bjørnvig, a current detective with East Jutland Police. He asserts, “We just skip the necessary investigative steps to close a case because as soon as there is a suspect in the case, we can no longer close it.” He highlights that this approach is applied not only in minor economic crimes but also in more serious cases involving larger sums of money.
The guideline allegedly instructs officers to initiate formal charges only if a suspect confesses. Søren Verdoner, a criminal law lecturer at Aarhus University, reviewed the documentation and classified it as an internal working document that implies if a suspect does not confess, the case should be dismissed.
The Legal Implications
Experts argue this practice significantly infringes on citizens’ rights to legal protection. Nicolai Sivan Holst, also a professor of criminal law at Aarhus University, notes that dismissing a case solely based on whether a suspect confesses violates fundamental legal principles. Holst emphasizes, that there must always be other considerations, and it cannot solely depend on whether there is a confession.
Both Bjørnvig and anonymous officers indicate that this approach was adopted after criticism of existing methods during a meeting at East Jutland Police in September 2024. Bjørnvig reports feeling conflicted about following the guideline due to its implications for justice, stating, “All the bad guys go free. Those who do not care about laws and rights.”
The situation is starkly different when he deals with a citizen who expresses remorse. “Those who regret and confess are punished. I have completely skipped over their rights. I cannot be part of that.”
Resource Constraints and Case Closures
One worrying aspect brought to light is the police force’s response to resource limitations. An internal document, referred to as an “action card,” indicates that police can close serious economic crime cases where amounts up to DKK 499,999 are involved, based solely on resource considerations. This guidance, effective since last September, allows officers to dismiss serious cases based on their resource availability, how they assess the situation overall, and without a thorough investigation.
Adam Diderichsen, a police researcher from the Danish Defense Academy, highlights concerns regarding the gravity of dismissing cases involving substantial amounts of money. He points out, “For most people, losing nearly half a million kroner would be catastrophic. I don’t think they take these transactions seriously enough if they’re closing cases with such high ceilings.”
The action card specifies that its guidelines apply to cases valued between zero and DKK 499,999. If a case involves a victim’s loss within these parameters, police are instructed that resource considerations may justify their decision to avoid initiating or continuing an investigation.
Holst expresses that if police are to result in the closure of a case with significant monetary value like this, they must be entirely confident that no further investigative leads exist. He believes this lack of specificity invites improper motives and maintains that without concrete proof of investigative dead ends, police lack the authority to dismiss cases and should involve the Prosecutor’s Office.
As East Jutland’s police force grapples with these allegations of neglecting serious crimes due to resource limitations and quota pressures, the scrutiny surrounding these guidelines will likely escalate, spotlighting the need for reforms in how law enforcement handles delicate criminal cases while ensuring citizens’ rights are preserved.
