frsrdg · GK04JO1 · 1997-01-01 00:00:00 — It is intended that officers will wear uniform more often than previously both while on duty and while travelling to and from work. The extension of the concept of officer in Article 2 of the Ordinance (1984:730) vide SFS 1994:1225 is consistent with this approach. The fact that the appearance of the officers in the school in the case under review resulted from the enforcement of a decision to collect an individual for questioning without a summons having previously been issued does not affect this point of view. It is, of course, ultimately the responsibility of the individual officer to act in such a way that those concerned are not exposed to unnecessary suspicion or any other discomfiture. In his decision issued on 21 1996, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, , made the following comment. As was pointed out initially, this complaint concerned the method used to enforce a decision to collect a 15-year-old pupil for questioning about a crime of which he was suspected. One of the criticisms made by the complainant concerned the collection of the pupil in question at his school by uniformed officers. I have found no reason to investigate the circumstances in this particular case in any further detail. My enquiry into the case has focused instead on the principle of the use of uniformed officers in situations of this nature. maintains in its reply that one consequence of the demand for increased visibility that has been placed on the forces in conjunction with the orientation of their activities towards crime prevention based on neighbourhood policing will be that, as a rule, officers will wear uniform while carrying out their duties. In the reply, particular reference is made to the obligation of the forces to create a sense of security within the community. Personally, however, I should also like to point out that uniforms serve other important functions as well. They announce, for instance, that their wearers have been granted special powers and that criminal law endows them with special protection while they are performing their duties. There are, therefore, good reasons for officers to wear uniform while on duty. There may arise, however, situations in which consideration for the individual affected by some action indicates that it should be undertaken by a plain-clothes officer. On earlier occasions the Parliamentary Ombudsman has expressed opinions on the use of uniformed officers driving patrol cars for the delivery of summonses (Parliamentary Ombudsman 1972, p. 77 and 1977/78, p. The standpoint taken by the Parliamentary Ombudsman was that in order to avoid attracting untoward attention to the delivery of a summons it was most appropriate for this duty to be performed by a plain-clothes policeman in a private car, but that certain circumstances, such as lack of time or the fact that all the officers available were obliged to wear uniform, could justify exceptions from this principle. In my opinion, there are reasons for adopting a similar approach when the question of assistance in connection, for instance, with the Act on Coercive Psychiatric Measure (1991:1128) arises. Where the investigation of crimes by the is concerned, reference can be made to the stipulation in the second sentence of 23.4.1 of the Procedural Code that a preliminary investigation is to be conducted in such a way that no individual be exposed to suspicion or sustain any cost or discomfiture. If the principle of consideration expressed here is to be complied with as the legislators intended, in certain cases officers will obviously have to wear plain clothes while performing their duties. The principle of consideration in the prosecution of crime becomes even more important where measures involving children are concerned. Section 17 of the Ordinance on Preliminary Investigations (1947:948) prescribes, for example, that for individuals under the age of 18 questioning is to be planned and carried out so that no risk arises of detriment for the individual being questioned and that special care must be taken so that it does not attract attention. Moreover, in this particular context a statement in the travaux préparatoires to the Act on Special Regulations about (1964:167) concerning the collection for questioning of children under 15 is of interest. The Minister makes it clear (Government 1983/84:187 p. 22) that consideration should be taken of the age and maturity of children before calling them in for questioning, and that this measure should therefore be used very restrictedly. As far as possible, collecting children for questioning should be avoided. In the event of such a measure becoming necessary, the ministers opinion was that it was important for it to be done discreetly and with all the consideration that such circumstances require. Only in exceptional cases should the child be collected by a uniformed officer or from a place where attention could be aroused. That neither collection nor questioning should take place in a school, unless there were very special grounds for doing so, was described as being particularly important. It would be totally anomalous if, in this respect, one standpoint were to apply where a 14-year-old is concerned and a totally different one just after a child has become 15. In my opinion, the statements quoted here should also function as the guidelines when the question arises of collecting someone between the ages of 15 and 18 for questioning. What has been said above about the import of the principle of consideration must nowadays also be seen against the background of commitments in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In all measures that affect children, whether taken by public or private social welfare organizations, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, according to Article 3.1, the childs best interests are to be given priority. According to the fundamental principle, which is applicable as far as is concerned, in the Convention the term child applies to all individuals below the age of 18. With regard to the statement by that the presence of policemen should be regarded as a natural feature, not least in schools I should like to emphasize, so as to avoid any misunderstanding, that it is of course of great value, in order, among other things, to create confidence in the force and its activities, for uniformed policemen to take part in the teaching, for instance, of law and . There are, however, good reasons for believing that coercive measures taken against pupils in schools by uniformed officers are unlikely to have a correspondingly positive effect. The question of the legal basis for measures taken at a military unit as a result of the disappearance of a firearm In a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, reference was made to a report in the massmedia that an AK 5 firearm had been stolen from a military unit in and that fourteen conscripts "were, in principle, confined to barracks" until the theft had been explained. According to the report, each of these conscripts had had an opportunity to misappropriate the firearm. The complainant claimed that this could give the impression that the conscripts were being confined to their quarters solely because they could be suspected of a crime. Such being the case, the complainant considered that there was a possibility that the conscripts had been deprived of their because of this suspicion and that the had made the decision to do so. submitted a response to the complaint. In their reply, they referred, as far as the confinement of the conscripts to barracks was concerned, to different regulations about the duties of conscripts. Attached to this reply was a statement by the acting Brigadier, L.S., who had made the decision to confine the conscripts to their barracks. The decision of 31 January 1996 by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, , contained the following comment. As the have pointed out, it is of extreme importance and indeed incumbent on the to take every measure possible in investigating the loss of military weapons. However, in doing so, it is necessary that the measures taken do not exceed the bounds permitted by law. In view of the consequences for the conscripts concerned of the orders they were given, there are grounds for drawing attention to Chapter 2 Article 8 of the Instrument of Government which protects every citizen from deprivation of by the public authorities and which also guarantees the right to move freely within the country or to leave it. Chapter 2 Article 12 goes on to stipulate that this can be limited as a result of legislation. The description of the regulations applying to the duties of national servicemen makes it clear that they do not have fixed hours of work but are obliged to be on duty to the extent demanded by operational requirements. According to the , the regulations referred to could, at any rate if interpreted extensively, be cited in support of the orders given to the conscripts in this case. However, in view primarily of what is described by acting Brigadier L.S. as the purpose of these measures, which was that the conscripts should be made available for questioning, I personally have difficulty in seeing that the orders can be covered completely by what is referred to in the regulations cited as maintenance of equipment and performing ones duties with responsibility. Where taking part in the search for the missing weapon is concerned, however, obviously I share the viewpoint of the . The powers of the while investigating crime are regulated in closer detail by Sections 2328 in the Procedural Code. In this context, the regulations concerning questioning for investigative purposes are of particular interest. There is a general obligation for citizens to co-operate with the where such questioning is concerned. This obligation comprises those suspected of a crime, injured parties, witnesses and others. The obligation to co-operate also entails the obligation to make oneself available for an interview. This obligation is subject to sanctions by virtue of the regulations in Section 23 of the Procedural Code concerning collecting and escorting individuals to stations for questioning. In the Procedural Code, Section 23.6 introduces these regulations by stipulating that anyone who can be assumed to possess information of significance for an investigation may be questioned. In 23.7 we find stipulations about the conditions on which the person to be questioned may be brought in for questioning and in 23.8 when, at the request of a officer, an individual is obliged to accompany the officer for questioning or may be detained. In 23.9 it is laid down that someone who has been so detained is not obliged to remain in custody for longer than 6 hours for questioning. If, however, it is of extreme significance, an individual suspected of a crime is obliged to remain a further 6 hours in custody. Once questioning has been terminated, or the time in which someone may be held in custody for questioning has elapsed, the basic rule is that the individual is free to leave. According to the information presented in the response, both the and the considered the measure of ordering the individuals involved to remain on duty to be necessary. The enquiry does not, however, reveal, at whose initiative this measure was taken. Irrespective of the state of affairs in this respect, there can be any doubt that the servicemens unit and the force were collaborating. The basic rules applying to collaboration between public authorities are contained in Section 6 of the Administrative Procedures Act (1986:223), which states that every public authority is to assist other authorities within the framework of its own operations. This rule applies not only in dealing with specific issues but, in principle, to all of the activities of the public authorities. The principle of collaboration has been considered to be of such fundamental importance that it also finds expression in Section 3 of the Act (1984:387). One of the statements in the first of this section is that the force is to collaborate with the and with other authorities and organisations whose activities affect the force. The second of the section states that other authorities are to render the force assistance in its operations. When one authority is assisting another in the performance of its duties, it goes without saying that the primary responsibility for ensuring that this collaboration complies with applicable regulations rests with the former. As far as can be judged, ordering the conscripts concerned to remain on duty made it unnecessary for the force to resort to coercive measures of the kind referred to above, at least during the period in which the preliminary investigation was taking place. have not been granted any independent powers to decide on coercive measures within the framework of the preliminary investigation of a crime. Against this background, and in view of my comments above on the issue of the legal basis for ordering conscripts to remain on duty, a measure which in my opinion contains obvious elements of deprivation of , I consider that the legality of the order given by acting Brigadier L.S. can be questioned. However, I find no grounds for asserting that he was totally without constitutional support for his actions. The registration of the numbers of incoming telephone calls to a public authority In a letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a journalist drew attention to the installation, in the autumn of 1995, by a local authority of a telephone system in which the telephone numbers from which incoming calls had been made were displayed on a screen in its exchange. In addition, there were about 700 telephones within the local authority which could display the telephone number of incoming calls. The general public had not been informed that they could no longer remain anonymous in their telephone contacts with the local authority. , however, grants everyone the right to anonymity in their contacts with the authorities. authorities have any right to investigate massmedias sources. What follows constitutes the substance of the decision issued on by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, . There is no constitutional stipulation that confers on everyone a positive right to remain anonymous in their contacts with public authorities. On the other hand, the Freedom of the Press Act and the constitutional provisions concerning freedom of speech stipulate the right to anonymity for those who provide information for publication in print or in radio programmes, films, or tape recordings. These stipulations state, for instance, that individuals who avail themselves of this freedom to supply information are not obliged to reveal their identity and that those involved in the creation or distribution of publications, or radio programmes, films, or tape recordings are not allowed to divulge the identity of informants. Furthermore, authorities and other public bodies are forbidden to investigate who has supplied information or made any other disclosure for the purpose of publication. These regulations also protect public officials who avail themselves of the freedom to supply information. In addition, a regulation in the Freedom of the Press Act prevents an authority from investigating, when access is requested to a public document, the identity of the applicant or the purpose of the application to any greater extent than is needed to enable the authority to decide whether the document may be disclosed. This regulation means that applicants may not even be asked to identify themselves if the information in the public document to which they have sought access is not covered by any of the provisions of the Secrecy Act (1980:100). It goes without saying that their identity may not be probed in any other way either. Only if the information in the document requested is subject to secrecy and the identity of the applicant is of significance for the assessment by the authority concerned of whether it may be divulged, may enquiry be made into the identity of the applicant. I have interpreted your complaint as expressing fears of possible encroachment of these constitutional rights by the agencies within the local authority, when the authority subscribes to a telephone service which enables the display within the authority of the numbers from which incoming calls have been made. What the display shows is a telephone number which belongs to an authority, a company, or an individual who has a subscription to a telephone company. A telephone can, however, be used by other people than the subscriber. The number displayed does not, therefore, allow any firm conclusion to be drawn about the identity of the caller. For this reason the circumstance that the number of the telephone used by an individual caller is displayed to the receiver of the call cannot in itself be regarded as resulting in the disclosure of the identity of the caller. It should be added that subscribers can request their telephone company to prevent, without any additional charge, their numbers from being displayed to those who have subscribed to the service in question. I have also ascertained that, in certain circumstances, this telephone service also enables callers telephone numbers, and often the date and time of the call, to be registered and stored. There is a limit to how many numbers can be stored. Once this limit has been reached, the first number already stored is erased automatically as the new number is entered. Subscribers to the service can also themselves erase all of their stored numbers. The ability to store numbers provides a subscriber to this service with the possibility of later establishing from which telephone contact was made and could enable an authority, to a limited and almost hypothetical extent, to carry out some degree of research as to whether, for example, officials employed by the authority have had contacts which could give rise to the suspicion that they have supplied information that has been published in print or broadcast in a radio or TV programme. I am assuming, however, that it is self-evident that this registration of telephone numbers will not be used to make enquiries which infringe the regulations. have you, in your complaint, claimed that registration of telephone numbers within the local authority has been used for such a purpose. In the light of what I have described here, I have no reason to assume on the basis of the contents of your complaint that the local authoritys introduction of the telephone service in question is as you feared it was at variance with the regulations in the Freedom of the Press Act and the constitutional provisions concerning freedom of speech which guarantee the protection of informants anonymity and prohibit enquiry into their identity. Therefore I find no reason to take any action as a result of your complaint. The question of the legality of the National Aliens Boards routines for dealing with post addressed to foreigners housed at residential facilities In his capacity as publicly appointed counsel for a family applying for asylum, G. requested the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate whether had the right to open and inspect or without opening the mail to copy letters or postal orders which had arrived for families housed in residential facilities, and whether a decision to reduce the daily allowance payable could be based on the result of such inspections. In his decision of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, . Lavin, wrote as follows. Initially, I should like to make it clear that the Parliamentary Ombudsman does not normally express any opinion about the correctness of a decision per se. Enquiry into questions of this kind normally only take place when a decision is in conflict with a law or other regulation or when the decision appears to be obviously wrong. In view of this, I am going to express no opinion about the decision of to reduce the daily allowance. Moreover, this issue has already been subject to the appraisal of the County Administrative Court. In what follows, I shall only concentrate on the National Aliens Boards routines regarding the distribution of postal items to those housed in the Boards residential facilities. These routines were described by the Board as follows. All post addressed to those applying for asylum who are housed in a facility arrives at the facilitys post box and is collected from the post office by the staff of the facility and laid out for collection from the facilitys reception office. Items of post which the staff consider may affect the amount of daily allowance payable are copied and the appropriate case officer may, if necessary, summon the refugee to an interview to establish whether a new decision on the amount payable is required. It should be noted that sealed envelopes/items are never opened. Certain envelopes reveal, however, that their contents may be of interest. One instance was the case in question which involved one of the postal giro systems envelopes containing a postal cheque (coloured green). In such cases, the envelope is copied and the refugee summoned to an interview and asked about the contents of the envelope. My starting point is, therefore, that the routines employed by involve opening envelopes or the retention of items of post. Admittedly, concede that post may have been opened on one or more than one occasion. In these cases, this was by mistake. I have found no reason to investigate this any further. I am, however, assuming that routines have been tightened up, or if this has not yet happened, will be, as soon as possible, to prevent any repetition of these mistakes. It transpires, therefore, that one of the routines of the staff of the residential facilities while sorting incoming post is to note items addressed to residents and record those which could be assumed to affect entitlement to a daily allowance postal orders and the like so that the staff of will then be able to challenge the addressee with the information so gained. These measures are therefore intended to help ensure that the daily allowance paid will not be larger than necessary. has also mentioned that it may happen that information which can be derived from items of post is noted down or communicated to other members of staff verbally. Insofar as assessment of the principles underlying these routines are concerned, there is any reason to differentiate between the different methods of ascertaining and disseminating the results of observations made while dealing with post. Individuals applying for asylum are only entitled to a daily allowance if they have no funds of their own. I am assuming that adequate information is available about the conditions for entitlement to a daily allowance, and that this information is translated so that applicants understand the significance of the forms they sign. In doing so, an applicant has undertaken to inform whenever necessary of any income or other assets which come to light after the application has been made. The routines adopted by in connection with the sorting of post are of such a nature that one can be left wondering whether applicants have been allowed enough time for them to reveal this information of their own accord. The regulations in 4.8 and 4.9 of the Criminal Code are applicable to the routines of described here, however strictly interpreted. The first of these sections does not apply because does not belong to the category of forwarding agencies its wording specifies, while 4.9 of the Criminal code is based on the presumption that items of post have been tampered with, i.e. that the offender has gained access to an item of post in sealed covers. The routines adopted by the Board involve no such action.