Through the Police Act, the Norwegian Parliament requires PST to investigate certain types of offences. As a starting point, our investigative work is governed by the same statutory provisions that apply to other investigation units within the police.
Statutory authority
Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Act gives the police statutory authority to carry out investigations. The detailed framework can be found in the Police Code of Practice and Code of practice for prosecutors.
Duty to investigate and prosecute crime
Section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that a criminal investigation shall be carried out when as a result of a report or other circumstances there are reasonable grounds to inquire whether a criminal matter subsists. This means that whenever PST has reason to suspect that a criminal act (within our remit) has been committed, we are under a duty to carry out further investigations.
Ordinary criminal investigations
Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates what the purpose of all criminal investigations should be. Their aim shall be to obtain the information necessary
a. for deciding whether an indictment should be preferred,
b. to serve as preparation for the court’s trial of the issue of guilt and any issue concerning the determination of a sanction,
c. to prevent or stop criminal acts,
d. in order to execute sentences and other sanctions, and e. to serve as preparation for the child welfare service to deal with the issue of whether measures shall be instituted pursuant to the Act of 17 July 1992 No. 100 relating to child welfare services.
Pre-emptive investigations
Like the rest of the police, we have the power to carry out investigations for the purpose of ensuring that those who commit offences are charged, convicted and punished. In PST’s special remit, however, the damage to society of an offence being committed can be so great that society expects us to prioritise pre-empting offences being committed in the first place.
Section 222 d, sub-section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act is therefore especially important. Through this provision, the legislators gave PST the power to use investigative methods to prevent or stop serious attacks on the country’s independence and security by carrying out so-called pre-emptive investigations. This creates the possibility to take more interventionist measures that those we are normally allowed to use in preventive activity. In other words, there is a legal distinction between carrying out routine preventive work, and pre-empting an imminent offence from being committed.
If we have the statutory authority for initiating an investigation, we will also be able to get the permission of the court to use special investigative techniques that in legal terminology are referred to as coercive measures in criminal procedure. Coercive measures is a generic term to describe a number of powers which subject to certain terms being complied with, can be used by certain public authorities, but not by others.
Chapter 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides the framework for the use of coercive measures to prevent serious crime. Coercive measures that the court can permit the police to use pursuant to Chapter 17 are searches, covert CCTV surveillance, forensic evidence gathering, seizure of property and disclosure orders, tapping and other forms of communications surveillance, identifying communications facilities as well as other forms of intercepting conversations by technical means (audio surveillance of private property).
Legislators have in section 222 d, sub-section 2 specified which offences must be suspected if PST is to be granted permission to use the coercive measures noted above in order to prevent a serious offence from being committed. The fundamental condition is that the court must find that there is reason to believe that a person is about to commit an offence specified in section 222 d.
The investigation must unearth all issues in a case
The police and prosecuting authority have a duty to unearth all relevant information in a case. In section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the legislators expressly indicate that if a particular person is a suspect, the investigation shall clarify matters that are to his disadvantage and matters that are to his advantage. In other words, our task is to work in an unbiased manner to unearth the truth. We must not draw any conclusions in an investigation before we have sound evidence. The police investigation will also be deemed successful if we conclude that no criminal offence has taken place. The objective of the investigation is achieved if the investigation has led to a clarification of matters.
The distinction between overt and covert investigations
When PST has launched a pre-emptive investigation into a suspect, neither they nor the general public should normally be informed. Our investigation should first and foremost be a so-called covert investigation, instead of an overt investigation, which other sections of the police carry out.
The Norwegian Parliament decides in section 17 b, sub-section 5 that an overt investigation in cases concerning sabotage, politically motivated violence, terrorist acts and the financing of terrorism shall as a rule be carried out by the rest of the police, unless the higher prosecuting authority decides otherwise. Our role in overt investigation of cases involving terrorism will therefore first and foremost be to assist the local police, Kripos or Økokrim, unless the public prosecutor has nevertheless decided that PST should handle the matter.
In other cases, such as espionage, violation of the Security Act, an attack against the constitution and head of state and spreading weapons of mass destruction, PST is responsible for both covert and overt investigations.