The era of the investigating prosecutor ends — but can the new prosecution office take hold?

The era of the investigating prosecutor is drawing to a close. Since the Prosecutors' Office Act was enacted in 1948, prosecutors have spent 78 years as an institution that both investigates crimes and brings charges. When the Prosecutors' Office is abolished and the new Public Prosecution Service launches on Friday, prosecutors' primary role will shift from leading investigations to overseeing them.

Analysts warn, however, that the new system — in which prosecutors no longer hold investigative powers — is likely to face considerable growing pains before it takes root on the ground. Whether the reform can honor its stated goal of separating investigation from prosecution while minimizing case delays and confusion over accountability is seen as the key test of the Public Prosecution Service's early success.

According to the National Assembly, the existing Prosecutors' Office Act will be repealed when the Public Prosecution Service Act takes effect on Friday. The organization known as the Prosecutors' Office will pass into history, but the title and position of "prosecutor" will remain. The Public Prosecution Service Act establishes a central Public Prosecution Service, regional prosecution services, and local prosecution services, with prosecutors assigned to each to carry out their duties.

The most significant change is the role of prosecutors themselves. Until now, prosecutors have been involved in virtually every stage of the criminal process — from investigating crimes to deciding whether to indict and then maintaining the prosecution at trial. Prosecutors who move to the Public Prosecution Service will step away from direct investigation entirely. An amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure passed last month deleted the existing provision stating that "a prosecutor shall investigate the offender, the facts of the crime, and evidence when there is reason to believe a crime has been committed." In its place, the revised code assigns prosecutors duties such as applying for warrants related to judicial police officers' investigations, requesting supplementary investigations, and demanding reinvestigation. The amended Code of Criminal Procedure takes effect Friday alongside the launch of the Public Prosecution Service.

Under the new framework, even if a prosecutor reviewing a case referred by police or another investigative agency concludes that further investigation is needed before deciding whether to indict, the prosecutor cannot conduct that investigation directly. Prosecutors may gather facts by hearing from suspects or others involved in a case, or by receiving relevant materials — but any statements or documents obtained through this process cannot be used as evidence at trial. For any additional investigation to take place, the prosecutor must formally request supplementary investigation from a judicial police officer. In short, prosecutors will be barred not only from initiating investigations but also from conducting supplementary investigations themselves; they may only request them.

Overseeing cases in which police have decided not to refer a suspect for prosecution — on the grounds that no crime was committed — will also become a core function of Public Prosecution Service prosecutors. A prosecutor may review the case records forwarded by police and, if the non-referral decision is found to be unlawful or improper, demand a reinvestigation.

The work of Public Prosecution Service prosecutors will not be limited to charging decisions and courtroom proceedings. The Public Prosecution Service Act defines prosecutors' duties to include not only deciding whether to bring charges and maintaining those charges at trial, but also applying for warrants, consulting with and supporting judicial police officers, requesting that courts apply the law correctly, and directing and supervising the execution of sentences. Prosecutors will also inherit a substantial share of the non-investigative work previously handled by the Prosecutors' Office, including conducting and overseeing litigation in which the state is a party or participant, as well as administrative litigation.

The constitutional power to apply for warrants, vested in prosecutors, will also be preserved. When police or another investigative agency determines that coercive measures — such as detaining a suspect or conducting a search and seizure — are necessary and submits a warrant application, a Public Prosecution Service prosecutor will review it and apply to the court.

The organization itself will also be restructured, shifting from a direct-investigation focus to one centered on prosecution, trial work, and judicial oversight. Where the old Prosecutors' Office directly investigated major cases through dedicated investigative units before indicting suspects, the Public Prosecution Service will place far greater weight on reviewing cases referred by investigative agencies, deciding whether to prosecute, and conducting trials.

The central question is how smoothly the new system will function in practice. Within legal circles, including among prosecutors themselves, there is concern that case processing could slow significantly: when a prosecutor reviewing case files identifies gaps, the prosecutor cannot address them directly but must instead send the case back to the investigative agency — a dynamic critics have dubbed "case ping-pong."

How much disruption the overhaul of the criminal justice system ultimately causes will depend largely on how investigative guidelines governing cooperation between prosecutors and judicial police officers — and the working practices that develop around them — take shape on the ground. Coordinating the scope and manner of supplementary investigation requests, and resolving problems that may arise as cases move back and forth between investigative agencies and the Public Prosecution Service, are also cited as challenges that must be addressed for the new system to find its footing.