Former Finnish Supreme Court Justice Gustaf Möller emphasised that pretrial detention should be an exceptional measure—not the norm—in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. He said any decision to continue detention should be based on a careful, individualised assessment of specific risks, including flight, destruction of evidence, or the possibility of serious criminal activity.

Möller made the remarks in response to a recent inquiry concerning the detention of ManHee Lee, chairman of Shincheonji Church of Jesus.

According to Möller, in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, pretrial detention is an exception rather than a general principle. Referring to Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), he explained that a defendant awaiting trial should be detained only when doing so is reasonable and necessary to address specific risks, such as flight, destruction of evidence, or the recurrence of serious crimes.

“Pretrial detention should not become a form of punishment before a final conviction has been reached,” Möller said. He stressed that courts must provide concrete and sufficient reasons when ordering or extending detention.

“In order to continue pretrial detention, relevant and sufficient grounds must be presented,” he said. “It is not enough for a court to simply repeat abstract legal phrases.”

Möller further explained that detention decisions should reflect the individual circumstances of the defendant. Courts should also consider whether less restrictive alternatives could adequately address the identified risks.

Possible alternatives, he noted, may include bail, surrender of travel documents, restrictions on residence, mandatory periodic appearances before authorities, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and limitations on contact with witnesses.

He also identified age and health as important factors in assessing the necessity and proportionality of detention.

While advanced age does not automatically exempt a defendant from detention, Möller said that courts must give serious consideration to circumstances arising from a defendant’s age, disability, and medical condition.

He said this consideration is particularly important when the defendant is 95 years old. In such circumstances, courts should carefully examine the person's medical vulnerability, whether detention facilities can provide appropriate medical treatment and care, the effect of detention on the defendant’s ability to prepare and participate in their defence, and whether alternative measures could achieve the same objectives.

Möller also emphasised that the necessity of detention should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. The proportionality of detention can change over time as a defendant’s health, age, and circumstances evolve and as an investigation or trial progresses.

Möller also stressed that the presumption of innocence applies throughout the investigation and trial process, rather than only at the point when a court issues its final judgment.

Referring to Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, he described the presumption of innocence as “one of the cornerstones of criminal justice in a democratic society.”

He explained that public authorities, including police and prosecutors, should not prejudge the outcome of a case or present allegations of guilt as established facts.

At the same time, Möller noted that governments are not prohibited from informing the public about investigations or indictments, nor are politicians prohibited from discussing matters of legitimate public interest.

The key issue, he said, is the language used when discussing an ongoing case.

“Public officials must use neutral and legally accurate language,” Möller emphasised. He said officials should consistently refer to “allegations,” avoid statements or descriptions that imply guilt has already been established, and recognise that determining guilt or innocence is ultimately the responsibility of the courts.

He further warned that statements by senior government officials can contribute to social stigma against a defendant, potentially influence witnesses, and create the perception that the government expects a particular outcome from the courts.

Although professional judges are expected to make independent decisions based solely on the evidence and applicable law, Möller said even the appearance of political pressure can weaken public confidence in the independence and fairness of the judicial process.

Möller also identified a defendant’s cooperation with investigators as a potentially relevant factor when assessing whether continued detention is necessary.

He explained that consistent cooperation with investigative authorities may indicate a lower risk of evidence being destroyed or concealed. Similarly, responding to summonses and voluntarily participating in legal proceedings may be relevant when assessing the risk of flight.

Such conduct may also be considered when determining whether detention is necessary to prevent the recurrence of serious criminal activity.

Ultimately, Möller emphasised that the authority of the judiciary depends not only on the law itself but also on public confidence that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and independently.

He said courts should make decisions based on clear reasoning, transparency, and consistency. This principle, he stressed, applies equally to decisions concerning pretrial detention.

Rather than relying on generalised or formulaic statements, courts should carefully examine the specific circumstances of each defendant and determine whether detention remains necessary, proportionate, and justified under the applicable legal standards.