This is an editorial comment.
The alarming rate of dismissals threatens due process and undermines confidence in the police.
When citizens in Norway experience what they believe are criminal offenses committed by police officers or the prosecuting authority, the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Police Cases (Spesialenheten) is the body intended to ensure an independent investigation.
Their existence is a foundation for the rule of law and public confidence in the uniform. However, the figures Spesialenheten itself presents raise a critical question: Does this body function as intended, or has it become an ineffective «dismissal machine» that cements a negative reputation for the police?
Alarming Dismissal Statistics
The statistics are troubling. Year after year, Spesialenheten’s own reports show that the vast majority of complaints against police employees are dismissed. For example, in 2022, 974 complaints were processed, but only 3 percent resulted in a positive prosecution decision (fine, indictment, or waiver of prosecution).
At the same time, a total of 64 percent of the reports were dropped because the unit did not find «reasonable grounds» to start an investigation. In 2021, almost 60 percent of the cases were dismissed without any form of investigation being initiated at all.
The figure today is over 70 %.
This high level of dismissals has led to the body receiving the unofficial, mocking name: “The Special Unit for Dismissal of Police Cases”.
Threat to Due Process
When a control body practically dismisses almost all cases, we face a potential threat to due process (rule of law/legal certainty).
- Lack of Independence and Critical Perspective: Spesialenheten is supposed to assess whether police officers have committed criminal acts in the line of duty. If the threshold for starting an investigation is too high, it may mean that serious reprehensible conditions are not uncovered or prosecuted. In many dismissals, Spesialenheten reiterates that they are not a «quality assurance body» for the prosecuting authority’s discretion. This narrow mandate may appear as an excuse to avoid a deeper scrutiny of possible errors and shortcomings in police work.
- Evidence Situation: Many complaints against the police concern the use of force and professional misconduct. Often, these may be «word-against-word» cases, or where the police’s own reports are the primary evidence. If Spesialenheten relies too heavily on the police’s discretion and lacks the will to obtain independent evidence or thoroughly question the aggrieved party and witnesses (the aggrieved party was questioned in only 19 percent of the cases that were not investigated in 2022), this weakens the due process for the complaining party.
- Powerlessness and Frustration: For the citizen who feels subjected to negligence or abuse by the police, an almost automatic dismissal creates a feeling of powerlessness and that the system protects itself. This is the exact opposite of the purpose of establishing an independent unit.
Negative Reputation and Crisis of Confidence
The establishment of Spesialenheten was intended to strengthen public confidence in society’s ability and willingness to investigate criminal acts committed by police employees. When the statistics, on the contrary, signal that it is virtually impossible to succeed with a complaint, the effect has been the opposite.
- Confidence in the Police: If the public perceives that the police are effectively protected against independent investigation and prosecution, confidence in the entire police organization is damaged. This can lead to the public becoming less cooperative, and in the worst case, reluctant to report reprehensible conditions in the future.
- Fear of Self-Censorship: Some have expressed concern that police officers in operational situations might become hesitant to intervene for fear of complaints, but Spesialenheten’s actual dismissal practice seems instead to provide officers with strong protection against criminal liability.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Riksadvokaten) has provided clear guidelines that a main purpose of the scheme is to create confidence and legitimacy. With today’s devastating dismissal figures, both the Ministry of Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions must take a critical look at Spesialenheten’s practice and assess whether the body’s mandate and resources are sufficient to ensure the independent investigation required by the rule of law.
What measures do you believe are necessary to strengthen Spesialenheten’s independence and investigative capacity to improve due process?