Supreme Court rules against extending prosecution period in Kivijärvi municipal manager’s defamation case
The Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution period for suspected defamation charges against Kivijärvi Municipal Manager Pekka Helppikangas will not be extended, effectively ending the case. The decision means Helppikangas will not face trial, despite the court acknowledging that he evaded the summons in a manner that led to the expiration of the prosecution period.
The case stems from an indictment filed in July 2025, alleging that Helppikangas defamed a subordinate during a municipal board meeting by making false or insinuating claims about the subordinate receiving or potentially receiving a bribe. The prosecutor sought a penalty of up to 40 day-fines. Helppikangas has consistently denied the allegations (Helsingin Sanomat).
Legal process and evasion of summons
The prosecution period was set to expire shortly after charges were filed, but the summons could not be delivered to Helppikangas in time. According to the Supreme Court, process servers attempted to reach him at his home, via phone, text message, email, and through contact letters left at his workplace. Police assistance was also requested, and Helppikangas was declared wanted. However, he remained unreachable before the deadline (Helsingin Sanomat).
Helppikangas later stated that he had been on annual leave and had traveled abroad. The Supreme Court concluded that his actions exhibited characteristics of evasion, as he placed himself in circumstances where he could not be reached (Yle).
Court rulings and final decision
The District Court of Central Finland initially ruled in favor of extending the prosecution period, finding that Helppikangas had evaded the summons. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, stating that while evasion had occurred, there were insufficient grounds to extend the prosecution period.
The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor leave to appeal but ultimately upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling. Under Finnish law, extending the prosecution period requires not only evidence of evasion but also that a highly important public interest justifies the extension. The Supreme Court determined that the suspected offense—while serious—did not meet this threshold (Yle, Helsingin Sanomat).
The case has now concluded without a trial, as the right to prosecute has expired.
