frsrdg · GO04JO1 · 2001-01-01 00:00:00 — According to Art. 31 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act, inmates of a treatment centre may not possess alcoholic beverages, narcotic substances, liquid solvents, substance of the kind referred to in the Act Prohibiting Certain Doping Substances (1991:1969) or objects of the kind covered by the Act Prohibiting Certain Substances Injurious to Health (1999:42), hypodermic needles, syringes or other objects particularly intended for the abuse or contact with narcotics in some other way. The same regulations stipulate that an inmate may not possess anything else that can be detrimental to the treatment programme or the good order of the centre. If such property is discovered it may be confiscated. Art. 32 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act provides for physical examination or body searches in order to establish that inmates are not in possession of items forbidden to them while residing at the treatment centre. The regulations in Articles 31 and 32 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act referred to above apply, according to Art. 33, to everyone undergoing treatment at a treatment centre, if this is required to complete the treatment and maintain good order at the centre, and if permitted by the government, or if so empowered by the government, . This means that these regulations also apply to those who have not been committed to a centre in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In Articles 34 and 35 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act there are additional regulations concerning the coercive powers that can be employed against those committed to treatment in residential centre because they need particularly rigorous supervision. Art. 34 states that these inmates may be prevented from leaving the centre and other restrictions placed on their to move freely, if this is required to enable the treatment to be given. It follows from this provision that an inmates freedom of movement may be restricted when this is required for the sake of the safety of other inmates or the staff. Art. 35 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act empowers the examination of mail sent to inmates and the confiscation of property prohibited according to Art. 31 if this is found in items received. In the WUDYDX[ SUHOLPLQDLUHV it is suggested that the kinds of object likely to be detrimental to the treatment programme or the good order of the centre referred to in Art. 31 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act are primarily weapons or other implements that could injure the staff or other inmates (Government Bills 1981/82:8 p. 93 f. and 1987/88:147 p. In a previous adjudication the Parliamentary Ombudsman has also declared that large sums of money in an inmates possession may be confiscated on the basis of Art. 31 of the Act, when confiscation is intended, for instance, to prevent situations in which blackmail could arise and also to avoid drugs being brought into the institution (7KH 3DUOLDPHQWDU\ 2PEXGVPDQ¶V $QQXDO 5HSRUW p. 294 f.). The regulations concerning the property that may be confiscated from a patient undergoing treatment as laid down in the Forensic Mental Care Act (1991:1129) are basically the same as those for treatment according to the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act. A comparison of Art. 28 in the Act on Compulsory Mental Care Act (1991:1128) with Art. 8 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act reveals that, in addition to drugs and the like, patients admitted to an institution for forensic mental care are not allowed to have in their possession any other objects that can cause harm to themselves or anyone else or that are detrimental to the treatment or the good order of the ward. According to a previous adjudication of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a patients possession of a considerable sum of money - (just over treatment programme and the good order of the institution, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman therefore considered it reasonable to interpret the concept of any other property to include money as well (cf. 7KH 3DUOLD PHQWDU\ 2PEXGVPDQ¶V $QQXDO 5HSRUW p. issued on 7 of this year, registration number 2563-1999, I found no reason to adopt another standpoint in the case of the confiscation of another 2000/01:JO1 Bilaga 5 The circumstances in this case were that the owner of the card was a drug addict and that drugs had been found in the ward in which he was undergoing treatment. There were also grounds for fearing that the patients cashpoint card could be given to a fellow-patient so that cash could be withdrawn. The balance of the account concerned totalled . Overall, there was an appreciable risk that the cashpoint card could be just as harmful for the treatment programme and good order as possession of an appreciable sum of money. In my opinion the same approach can be adopted when dealing with a cashpoint card or the like in the possession of someone committed to a centre for treatment in accordance with the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act. It is not, , quite as obvious that possession of an ID card could be detrimental to the treatment programme or the good order of the centre. It cannot, however, be ignored that this kind of document, in enabling for instance cash withdrawals from a bank, represents a value that in this context can be compared to that of a cashpoint card or cash itself. I therefore consider that there is nothing to prevent the confiscation of cashpoint cards and ID cards on the basis of the provisions in Art. 31 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act when the other conditions required for such confiscation are fulfilled. In the National Boards response it is asserted that the confiscation of the cashpoint card and ID card belonging to A.G. were based on the assessment that possession of these objects could be detrimental to the treatment programme and the good order of the centre. It has not, however, been claimed that the cashpoint card and/or the ID card in this case - inside the centre - were detrimental to the treatment programme or jeopardised its good order. Ultimately, the reason for confiscating the objects appears to have been to prevent A.G. from absconding from the centre. One can, of course, pose the question of whether the confiscation of property, for the purpose of preventing an inmate from absconding, is covered by the provisions of Art. 31 of the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act. Certain reservations must be entertained, on principle, about applying regulations involving coercive powers too widely. However, I consider that the link between the risk of the inmate absconding and the detrimental impact that such an action or planned action would have on the treatment programme and the good order of the centre is tangible enough to justify the application of Art. 31 in such a situation. In the case in question, the superintendent is to be regarded as having had justifiable reasons for assuming that A.Gs possession of both the cashpoint card and the ID card could be detrimental to the treatment programme and the good order of the centre. The confiscation of the documents cannot therefore provide me with occasion to express any criticism. 2000/01:JO1 Bilaga 5