frsrdg · GL04JO1 · 1998-01-01 00:00:00 — initiativärende rörande innehållet i en av ett sjukhus utgiven skrivelse Rutiner för massmediekontakter. Fråga om personalens yttrandefrihet inskränkts 95/96:451 en landstingsanställd läkare som i brev till en kommunstyrelse protesterat mot vissa organisatoriska förändringar inom , hade kallats till möte med sjukvårdsledningen. Fråga om kränkt läkarens yttrandefrihet 95/96:447 påstådda inskränkningar i anställdas yttrande- och meddelarfrihet 95/96:454 avstängning från deltagande i Statens undersökningar av luftfartsolyckor med hänsyn till att uppgifter från en utredning offentliggjorts, m.m. 95/96:161 fråga om handläggningen av ett disciplinärende vid ett domkapitel varit förenlig med den grundlagsreglerade åsikts-, yttrande- och meddelarfriheten 95/96:457 kritik mot företrädare för en offentlig arbetsgivare en kyrklig samfällighet för att en arbetstagares uttalanden i massmedia lagts till grund för ett ingripande mot denne 95/96:462 fråga om rätten att sprida politisk information i en skola 95/96:394 fråga om läkares meddelar- och yttrandefrihet kränkts när han kritiserats för uttalanden rörande en patient 96/97:454 fråga om rätt för föräldrar och journalister att komma in i en skola för att samtala med eleverna i en klass. Tillika fråga om skolan skall ta hänsyn till vårdnadshavarnas inställning, innan den tillåter att elever intervjuas av en journalist i skolan 96/97:381 skolledningar har förbjudit elever att bära vissa kläder eller märken med nazistisk innebörd, eller hindrat spridning av skrifter med sådant innehåll 97/98:436 fråga om skolledning genom att förbjuda elever att lyssna på viss musik och att omhänderta ett kassettband handlat grundlagsstridigt 94/95:406 åklagarens skyldigheter när domstolen fattat ett olagligt häktningsbeslut 96/97:57 kritik mot en åklagare som upprätthållit restriktioner avseende en häktad persons kontakter med omvärlden efter det att den muntliga bevisningen tagits upp vid huvudförhandlingen i tingsrätten 96/97:62 åklagares möjlighet att meddela restriktioner för gripna och anhållna 97/98:112 mot en polisman; fråga om det funnits lagligt stöd för vakthavande befäls beslut om frihetsberövande av person som medtagits till förhör 94/95:65 vakthavande befäl för tjänstefel och undertryckande av urkund 94/95:80 mot en polisman; fråga om det funnits lagligt stöd för polismans beslut om omhändertagande enligt 13 § polislagen 94/95:86 mot en polisman för tjänstefel (rättelser av parkeringsanmärkningar avseende egna fordon) 94/95:104 mot en präst för tjänstefel har ogillats (vigsel av senildement kvinna) 94/95:418 åtal mot en lärare för misshandel samt kritik mot skolledning och skolförvaltning för uteblivna stödinsatser m.m. 96/97:364 en polismyndighet har utan lagligt stöd företagit husrannsakan för efter- sökande av utlänningar. Åtalsunderlåtelse efter avslutad förundersökning 96/97:170 myndighets agerande för parts återkallelse av sin talan (överklagande) Återkallelse av gynnande beslut handläggningen vid en länsstyrelse av tre överklagningsärenden rörande dispens från krav på betesgång för mjölkkor har befunnits strida mot förvaltningsrättsliga föreskrifter och grundläggande förvaltningsrättsliga principer 96/97:356 fråga om en socialnämnds möjlighet att återkalla ett beslut att bevilja bistånd enligt 6 § socialtjänstlagen 97/98:348 offentliga förvaltningars skyldighet att hålla öppet under s.k. klämdagar 97/98:487 frågor om tillstånd för omyndig att driva näring, tillstånd för förmyndare att uppta lån på den omyndiges vägnar, jäv för överförmyndare m.m. 94/95:485 kritik mot överförmyndare för långsam handläggning av ett ärende om entledigande av förvaltare 94/95:492 kritik mot i handläggningen av ett förmynderskapsärende. Fråga om vård av omyndigs rätt i oskiftat bo samt om förteckning och slutredovisning enligt 16 kap. 94/95:495 förordnande om sekretess i ett förmynderskapsärende 95/96:423 handläggningen av ett ärende om byte av förvaltare, bl.a. fråga om myndighets serviceskyldighet 95/96:418 kritik mot en i handläggningen av ett förmynderskapsärende 95/96:425 handläggningen av yrkanden om arvode till en förvaltare enligt föräldra- balken, bl.a. fråga om skyldighet att kommunicera arvodesyrkanden med huvudmannen 96/97:409 kritik mot en överförmyndare för brister i tillsynen över en god mans förvaltning 96/97:412 kritik mot i handläggningen av ett ärende rörande tillstånd till kapitalplacering 96/97:418 fråga om överförmyndares skyldighet att lämna över slutredovisning då godmanskap upphört 96/97:423 fråga om kanslichefs vid överförmyndarnämnd uppdrag som god man m.m. 96/97:425 fråga om ledamots eller ersättares i överförmyndarnämnd uppdrag som god man eller förvaltare 96/97:428 kritik mot att meddela beslut med anledning av en begäran om att få ta del av allmänna handlingar. Även fråga om brev till ledamöter i överförmyndarnämnd utgör allmänna handlingar m.m. 96/97:461 fråga om utlämnande av allmänna handlingar i ett godmansärende 96/97:466 handläggningen av en god mans begäran om tillstånd till försäljning av huvudmannens fastighet 97/98:474 underlåtenhet av överförmyndarnämnd att inhämta yttrande från huvudmannens närmaste släktingar över en begäran av en god man om tillstånd till försäljning av en fastighet 97/98:480 fråga om de rättsliga möjligheterna för en överförmyndarnämnd att vidta åtgärder med anledning av avtal om fastighetsförsäljning 97/98:483 skattemyndighet har inte uppfattat en skrift som överklagande 95/96:234 handläggningen av ett överklagande när det överklagade beslutet förkommit hos socialförvaltningen 96/97:298 handläggningen vid en länsstyrelse av tre överklagningsärenden rörande dispens från krav på betesgång för mjölkkor har befunnits strida mot förvaltningsrättsliga föreskrifter och grundläggande förvaltningsrättsliga principer 96/97:356 kritik mot skolledning för brister i handläggningen av ett ärende angående uttagning av elever till undervisning i särskild undervisningsgrupp 96/97:372 kritik mot en tingsrätt för handläggningen av ett överklagande av överförmyndarnämnds beslut 97/98:77 kritik mot en polismyndighet för dröjsmål med förordnande av offentligt biträde för förvarstagen utlänning m. rutinerna vid en barn- och utbildningsnämnds handläggning av ansökningar om antagning till gymnasieutbildning (gymnasial vuxenutbildning) i annan kommun; framställning till regeringen med förslag till översyn av viss reglering i skollagen (1985:1100) 96/97:386 fråga bl.a. om polismyndighet haft stöd i lag för sin åtgärd att till ett vaktbolag överlämna vissa förvaltningsuppgifter 97/98:173 polismyndighets genomförande av en övning 95/96:116 The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen Report for the period 1 1996 to 30 1997 During the period covered by the report, the following have held office as Parliamentary Ombudsmen: , who is Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, , (until ), and (between 1 and 17 1997). During sick leave (1 July31 ) and during the period of vacancy before taking office (1 January28 February 1997) has acted as Deputy Ombudsman. has supervised the courts of law, the public prosecution service and the , while has dealt with matters concerning the prisons, the armed forces, taxation, customs, the execution of judgements, social insurance and chief guardians. Until supervised the fields of social welfare, public health and care and immigration. As from 1 January 1997 he has been responsible for the supervision of the administrative courts, and construction, immigration, environmental protection, labour market, the State Church and all additional aspects of civil administration not supervised by any other Parliamentary Ombudsman. Between 1 and that area (except immigration but education included) was supervised by Deputy Ombudsman . has supervised the fields of social welfare, public health and care and education between 1 and 17 1997; during the first two months of 1997 those fields were supervised by . During the year, 4 904 new cases were registered with the Ombudsmen; 4 840 of them were complaints and other cases received (150 less than the number received during the previous year) and 64 were cases initiated by the Ombudsmen themselves on the basis of observations made during inspections, of newspaper reports or on other grounds. It should be noted that the schedules overleaf show cases concluded during the period, not all cases lodged. This summary describes some of the cases dealt with by the Ombudsmen. Schedule of cases initiated by the Ombudsmen and concluded during the period 1 199630 1997 Closed without final critisism Admoni-tions or other critisism Prosecu-tions or discipli-nary pro-ceedings Preliminary investigation; no prosecu-tion Proposal to Parliament or to the Government Environmental management, public health, protection of animals documents, Freedom of the press Shedule of complaint cases concluded during the period 1 1996 Referred to other agencies or state organs Admonitions or other critisism Prosecu-tions or discipli-nary pro-ceedings Prelimina-ry investigation; no prosecution Agriculture, environ-mental management, public health, pro-tection of animals Other cases at County administrative boards, control of lotteries etc. Access to official documents, Freedom of the press Complaints outside jurisdiction, complaints of obscure meaning Summonses issued to young people under the age of 15 requiring them to give evidence During an inspection of the District Court of by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, one of the points which received attention was the following. In a case concerning theft, two young witnesses, aged 13 and 14, had been summonsed to the main hearing. The summonses addressed to the witnesses required them to attend in person on penalty of a fine for non-compliance. The case-file made it clear that in his list of witnesses to be called, the prosecutor had informed the District Court that the two concerned were under 15. Their guardians had not been notified of the hearing. In a case in which one of the charges concerned assault, two 14-year-old plaintiffs were required to attend the main hearing on penalty of a fine for non-compliance. The age of the plaintiffs was not clear from the personal details in the documents submitted to the District Court. The guardians of the plaintiffs were not sent any notification of the hearing. The adjudication made by the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, . , after a response had been received from the District Court included the following comments. A summons is issued to anyone called as a witness requiring them to attend the court hearing on penalty of a fine for non-compliance (36.7.1 in the Procedural Code). The provisions with regard to the penalty for non-compliance are not, however, applicable to witnesses under the age of 15 (36.13 & 36.22.1 in the Procedural Code). If a plaintiff is bringing suit, prosecuting the case with the prosecutor, or is called by the prosecutor, he is to be summoned to the main hearing. If he is required to attend in person, the district court is to make him subject to a penalty for non-compliance (45.15.1 in the Procedural Code). In the Procedural Code, 20.14.1 and 11. 5.4 stipulate in which cases a plaintiff is to be required to appear in person. The second of these two paragraphs states that a party to a civil case is to attend the main hearing in person unless his presence can be assumed to be of significance for the courts enquiry. When a party is represented by a substitute, the stipulations concerning personal attendance are to apply to the substitute. A party who is not himself presenting his case is, however, obliged to attend in person if the court considers this necessary for its enquiry. These two paragraphs are also to be applied where plaintiffs are concerned, even if they are not themselves prosecuting the case (20.14.1 in the Procedural Code). General rules about penalties for non-compliance can be found in the Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance (1985:206). This lays down, for instance, that such penalties cannot be invoked if the addressee can be assumed to lack the actual or legal capacity to comply with the order (Art. 2.2 of the Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance 1985:206). Concerning those subject to penalties for non-compliance etc. Up until January 1 1988, a witness who failed to appear at a hearing could be fined. Only if a case was adjourned for a new hearing could a witness be summoned subject to a penalty for non-compliance. The prohibition against invoking penalties for non-compliance for witnesses under the age of 15 was justified by pointing out that "application of sentences of fines or penalties for non-compliance requires that the witness is criminally responsible" (NJA II 1943, p. This reasoning is obviously also relevant where plaintiffs under 15 are concerned. According to 45.15.1 of the Procedural Code, a district court shall invoke a penalty for non-compliance when calling a plaintiff to appear in person and is not empowered to make the exception for plaintiffs under the age of 15 that can be made for witnesses. Only in special circumstances does the Procedural Code enable a court to refrain from invoking such a penalty when this is a specially stipulated requirement. If a summons is to be issued to someone resident outside , a court may refrain from invoking a penalty for non-compliance on condition that the summons cannot otherwise be served in the country concerned (9.7.2 in the Procedural Code). It can therefore be established that the Procedural Code offers no possibility of refraining from imposing a penalty for non-compliance in the cases which concern us here. The regulations concerning penalties for non-compliance are, however, not found exclusively in the Procedural Code. In fact, unless special provisions stipulate otherwise, the Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance (1985:206) is to apply. In this Act, 2.2 stipulates, as has already been pointed out, that such penalties cannot be invoked if the addressee can be assumed to lack the actual or legal capacity to comply with the order. Here, reference can be made to Lavin, Viteslagstiftning. En kommentar (The Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance. A Commentary) 1989, p. As the Procedural Code cannot be regarded as stipulating otherwise, Article 2 of the Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance must be taken into account if summonses are to contain penalties for non-compliance. Here it may be appropriate to make some general statements with regard to penalties for non-compliance. Invoking a penalty for non-compliance fulfils more or less the same purpose as imposing a fine. It functions as a general deterrent in order to maintain respect for such penalties as a whole, and the exaction of the penalty makes it clear to an individual that any further imposition is intended seriously (, Allmän förvaltningsrätt (General ), 16th edition, p. Penalties for non-compliance also resemble fines in other ways as well. For instance the penalty can be altered to a prison sentence as laid down in the Act on Exaction of Fines (1979:189). Children do not become legally responsible until the age of 15 (Penal Code 1.6). In view of the similarities of penalties for non-compliance and other penalties, it is not considered, either, that penalties for non-compliance can be imposed on those below this age and therefore young people below the age of 15 cannot be subject to a penalty for non-compliance (cf. Lavin, Vitesföreläggandets adressat (Those Subject to Penalties for Non-Compliance) p. As has already been pointed out, the travaux préparatoires of the Procedural Code assume that penalties for non-compliance can only be imposed on those who are criminally responsible. The regulation in Article 2 of the Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance also prevents the imposition of such penalties on very young people. In fact it is not infrequently those who have not yet attained the age of 15 who must be assumed to be the type of individual that lacks the capacity to fulfil the requirement for whom this paragraph is intended. To sum up therefore, it can be established that the question of imposing a penalty for non-compliance on a plaintiff who has not yet attained 15 cannot arise. The penalty for non-compliance should instead be addressed to whoever has actual custody of the child and therefore the capacity to ensure that the obligation is fulfilled (see Lavin Vitesföreläggandets adressat (Those Subject to Penalties for Non-Compliance), p. Should it prove impossible in some cases to decide upon some other addressee, despite the mandatory wording of 45.15 in the Procedural Code, the district court must then refrain from imposing a penalty for non-compliance. What has been adduced here is also pertinent when a child that has attained 15 but not yet 18 is summoned as a plaintiff to appear in person at a court hearing. Children of this age can often also be assumed to lack the actual capacity to comply with an injunction to appear. In order to take time off school or to make other necessary practical arrangements, the child will probably need the help of an adult. In such circumstances, as well, the regulations of the Act on Penalties for Non-Compliance may in a specific case result in the decision to impose the penalty for non-compliance on some person other than the minor himself. The regulations governing the summoning of witnesses mean that no penalty for non-compliance may be imposed in a summons addressed to a witness under the age of 15. In the case of a witness who has admittedly attained this age but is still not yet 18, on the other hand, just as in the case of a plaintiff, a summons demanding personal attendance must be combined with a penalty for non-compliance, but this may be addressed to the person who has the actual custody of the minor. In the Procedural Code there are no regulations implying that the guardian, or whoever is responsible for the care of a minor, is to be informed of the time of a hearing to which the minor has been called. From what has been said about summonses to plaintiffs who have not attained 15 and to witnesses and plaintiffs who are not yet 18 and lack the capacity to comply themselves with a penalty for non-compliance, however, it follows that those responsible for the care of these young people will be informed as the summons with the penalty for non-compliance will be addressed to them. When a summons concerns somebody to be heard witness or plaintiff who has attained the age of 15 but not yet 18 and who is considered capable of being subject to a penalty for non-compliance, a reasonable procedure would, in my opinion, be to send a special notification of the time of the hearing to their representative at the same time as the summonses are sent to the young persons themselves. The District Courts Handling of the Case This enquiry shows that in one of the criminal cases concerned the District Court has, in breach of 36. 13 & 36. 22.1 of the Procedural Code, issued summonses to two witnesses under the age of 15 which imposed penalties for non-compliance and that in another case it has erroneously imposed a penalty for non-compliance on a 14-year-old plaintiff called upon to give evidence concerning the charge. With regard to lege ferenda The difference in the form of a summons issued to someone under the age of 15 who is to testify made in the Procedural Code between witnesses and plaintiffs obviously derives both from the fact that technically a plaintiff should in principle be regarded as one of the parties to the case, and from the circumstance that originally the penalty for a witness who did not appear was a fine. Today, however, this difference in the formulation of the two summonses would appear to have no real basis in those cases in which a plaintiff is not involved in prosecuting the case but is merely called to give evidence. The existing prohibition against invoking penalties for non-compliance in summonses issued to witnesses below the age of 15 has caused any practical problems for the courts. Correspondingly, it can be assumed that there is no practical need to invoke a penalty for non-compliance in summonses issued to plaintiffs below the age of 15. In my opinion, there are therefore good grounds for considering the introduction of a prohibition against invoking penalties for non-compliance in summonses issued to plaintiffs under the age of 15. In view of the fact that today, as has already been pointed out, virtually all young people under the age of 18 still live at home and go to school, in many cases penalties for non-compliance should properly be invoked against the person who actually has custody of the child. There is every reason, however, to question the necessity of mandatory penalties for non-compliance in summonses issued to children who are over 15 but not yet 18 as, generally speaking, the threat of such a penalty addressed to the person who has custody of the child cannot be expected to lead to extra effort being made to ensure that the child appears. The responsibilities appertaining to custody of children include helping them with the kind of practical matters they cannot be expected to cope with on their own. A responsible parent or guardian could therefore view such a penalty as either unnecessary or even insulting. Moreover, it may be difficult or even downright impossible in a specific case for a District Court to determine what practical possibilities were open to a guardian to ensure attendance. For the reasons given here, the possibility should be considered of enabling the courts to refrain from invoking a penalty for non-compliance when issuing a summons to testify to someone who has reached the age of 15 but is not yet 18. As, therefore, there are reasons to consider changes in the legislation, copies of this adjudication will be circulated to the Cabinet Office, the and . The decision to use entrapment for the purpose of acquiring evidence during a preliminary enquiry is to be made by a prosecutor In a letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, lodged a complaint against the authorities in the County of maintaining that they had used obviously improper methods in their investigations. This had consisted, according to the complainant, of participation in and instigation of a criminal act when a officer adopted the role of a prospective purchaser and later the buyer/ recipient of half a kilogram of cocaine. From the documents that were submitted the following transpired. At noon on 3 1992, the narcotics squad at station received a tip from the director of an in that some form of traffic in drugs was taking place and that a Somali could provide more information. , , Cadet Redar Baskin who was at the time serving with the uniformed branch at another cadet and the two cadets supervisor went to the as a result of this tip. The reason for asking for Redar Baskins help was that and considered that his appearance could be useful if the tip turned out to be accurate. At the , , and Redar Baskin met someone called A.M. who recounted the following. The corridor in which A.M. was living also housed an individual from called H., who, together with another Peruvian called A., had offered A.M. H. and A. had then remarked to A.M. that as he had such a large circle of acquaintances he could easily sell cocaine on their behalf. On this particular occasion they had a bag containing 50 grams of cocaine. had refused to have anything to do with the cocaine, H. and A. had travelled in to the centre of . On their return to the in later that day, they showed A.M. 21 000 Swedish crowns and said that they had been selling cocaine and that it had been very easy. Once again they asked A.M. to sell on their behalf, saying that they had the cash to buy more cocaine. All this had happened at the end of October. thought that this was a dirty business and decided to set a trap for H. and A.