frsrdg · GP04JO1 · 2002-01-01 00:00:00 — It is worth mentioning in this context that the stipulations of the Care of (Special Provisions) Act (1990:52) do not provide for the placement of children outside . Whichever of these alternatives the social authorities choose, it will have a major impact on the future possibilities of contact between the child and its parent. If custody is given to a close relative or friend in the parents own country, in practice this will mean that contact between child and parent will be interrupted for a long period. If instead the child remains in , contact with the parent admittedly remains possible while the sentence is being In reality, however, the scope for any normal contact is limited in view of the restrictions that apply within the prison service to prisoners who are to be deported on completion of their sentence, vide the regulations issued by the National Prison and (2000:7). In many cases these restrictions exclude any form of contact outside the visitors rooms provided in the various prisons. If contact between a parent and a child has been in-adequate, this can obviously give rise to problems for parents who want their children to accompany them when deported to their own country. My enquiry reveals that the social authorities contacted the Swedish Embassy in in to try to establish contact with any relatives there but that its enquiries were fruitless. I have also been able to establish that M. was placed in accordance with K.Ks request and that her that the parents should be interested in African culture was taken into ac-count. This accords with the opinions expressed previously by the Parliamentary Ombudsman that childrens possibilities of maintaining contact with their cultural origins should be borne in mind when placements are made, vide The Parliamentary Ombudsmans Annual Reports for 1989/90, p. 231 and 1998/99 p. In this respect the actions of the social authorities merit no criticism on my part. During the first few years of her placement, contact between M. and K.K. seems to have functioned as satisfactorily as could be expected in view of the circumstances. From the autumn of 1997 and onwards, however, it deteriorat-ed. As far as can be seen, this is more or less exclusively the result of variations in Ms psychological condition. It is of course extremely unfortunate that contact between M. and K.K. deteriorated to such an extent. However, the enquiry provides no grounds for criticism of the way in which the social authorities dealt with the problem of enabling contact between M. and her mother. The issue of how to come to terms with the problems that may arise during home placement of long duration is taken up in the report of the Commission on the Care of (Special Provisions) Act entitled Omhändertagen - Samhällets ansvar för utsatta barn och ungdomar [In Care - the Communitys Responsibility for Children and at Risk] (SOU 2000:77). I intend to attach a copy of this adjudication to the comments I will submit as part of the consultation process on this report (registration number 3580-2000) in order to throw more light on the complications that can arise in this context. It should be pointed out that in the autumn of 1997 and the Prison and were jointly commissioned to review the situation of children whose parents were in remand centres or prisons, and that this brief was extended during the autumn of 1998 to include review of the role of homes for children whose parents were incarcerated. A report has now been submitted entitled "Children with Incarcerated Parents". In no other respect do the complaints made by I.C. warrant further opinions or actions on my part. Disciplinary measures against an employee of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science concerning the erroneous weighing of narcotic substances (Registration number 3689-1998) submitted a written complaint against the National Laboratory of Forensic Science. The gist of the complaint and the attached documents was as follows. In view of suspicions that J.P. along with several others was involved in serious narcotics offences and attempted smuggling, the authorities requested the National Laboratory of Forensic Science to analyse a consignment of confiscated narcotics. The substance concerned (amphetamine) had been stored in ceramic bottles. The analysis was performed by , a forensic analyst, on 12 1998. According to the analysis report, which she wrote on the same day, the weight of the narcotic substance totalled 2,325 grams. and several others were prosecuted in District Court for the crimes of which they were suspected. During the trial J.P. stated that the narcotics weighed 1,800 grams. testified at the trial, and the court found that the weight of the narcotics amounted to 2,325 grams. was convicted of this and other criminal acts and sentenced to six years in prison. He appealed against the decision of the district court to the Court of Appeal requesting further investigation of his case and a second weighing of the narcotics. This request was rejected by the Court of Appeal. then requested the National Laboratory of Forensic Science to weigh the narcotics on his behalf. When the substance was weighed for the second time, again by , on 28 1998, it transpired that her result from the first analysis was erroneous, as after the bottles had been sawn in half she had only deducted the weight of one of the two halves. During this second analysis, the weight of the narcotics amounted to 1,864 grams. also testified at the hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Appeal Court reduced J.Ps prison sentence to five years and six months, mainly on the basis of the evidence in the hearing about the quantity of narcotics concerned in this specific charge. The complaint made by J.P. against and the National Laboratory of Forensic Science involved criticism of the following points, among others. When weighed the substance erroneously on 12 1998 she contravened the Laboratorys internal regulations that two individuals should be present when such weighing took place. During her testimony under oath at the district court she failed to disclose this lapse. had she reacted to the difference of almost 500 grams between the weight of two equally large bottles filled to more or less the same extent. The National Laboratory of Forensic Science had overlooked or ignored failure to comply with its regulations and had not adequately investi- gated the errors that had been made. After this case had been referred to the Regional Prosecution Office in , the acting Chief District Prosecutor, , decided on 25 1998 not to launch an investigation. What had been revealed about the way in which the case had been handled gave no reason to believe that it involved any form of criminal negligence. The Superintendent of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science, , decided on 1998 that the case should not be referred to . The review of the case undertaken by the Public Prosecution Authority was shelved as a result of a decision made by the acting Director of the Authority, , on 18 1999 - were any evidence to come to light showing that individual officers at the National Laboratory of Forensic Sci-- ence had been negligent, the offences could not be considered grave ones. The internal regulations of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science laying down the routines to be followed by the narcotic substances analysis unit (an excerpt from the "") were available. The complaint was referred to the National Laboratory of Forensic Science for investigation and a statement after the official concerned had been heard. On 1998, the National Laboratory of Forensic Science submitted its response, one of the attachments being a statement by . statement included the following (attachments have been excluded). The sample consisted of three ceramic bottles (which were not transparent). It was when the first bottle was weighed that the mistake was made. I weigh-ed both halves of the bottle as well as the powder. After scraping out the powder so that I could weigh both halves of the empty bottle, I weighed only one half and deducted the result from the total weight of both halves and the powder. After that I conducted all the analyses, calculated the weights and wrote my report on the case and filed it. Before I did so, checked the calculations and read the report. Some time later, I was called on to testify by telephone with only 20 minutes notice. I took out the written analysis report and the laboratory journal and also the empty bottles which we had retained in a cupboard where they were available for inspection. I checked the figures and the calculations and asked someone else (I dont remember who) to check them once again. It crossed my mind that the first bottle weighed less than the second, but I could see that the first bottle was made of thinner material and also that the second one seemed to have been fired for a longer time (more sintering which results in material that is of greater density and weight). My assessment was that the figures were reasonable. During my testimony the weights I had given were not challenged. What was discussed was whether liquor could have seeped into the powder and dampened it, in particular with regard to the third bottle, as in the picture taken from above it seems to be damp because it was the layer of paraffin wax that had been photographed. I received a summons from the Court of Appeal to testify on 5 1998. A request had already been submitted on 23 1998 by a private indi-vidual for the substances to be weighed once again. This came from the ac-- I was not at that time at the National Laboratory of Forensic Science as I was on holiday, but went into work by chance and discovered that this second weighing had been requested. Per and that I should come into work so that I could weigh the substance for the second time as the case was my responsibility. On 28 1998, I went into the laboratory and weighed the substance again. I could see the sample could not have dried out to the extent that the new results suggested. When I took out the bottles and looked at my previous report I discovered the error I had made. The half of the bottle that had contained least powder had not been weighed. Its weight was 460.5 grams. I spoke to Per. I reopened the case and wrote a new report with the correct weights, at the same time noting clearly that this was a correction, see attachment 2. In addition I filled in a quality deficiency report. I also asked Per to help me to write a report for the law firm that had requested reweighing of the sample. Per wrote this report, I checked it through and signed it. I did not notice that it had been dated incorrectly. The report states that the second weighing took place on 8 1998, whereas it was on 28 1998, see attachment 3. In addition Per wrote a letter of apology to the law firm, see attachment 4. I subsequently testified in on 5 1998, where I described the mistake I had made. I also pointed out that I had not followed our routine that says that there should be two people involved in weighing any sample of over 100 grams but explained, at the same time, that as a matter of routine we always weigh samples when they are unpacked. The question then came up of whether the sample was damp or not. I asserted that it was normal amphetamine and not damp powder. Here I had support from Per, who was with me when the bottles were opened and who saw the sample. alleges in his complaint that I withheld under oath information about the erroneous weighing. For me it is important to point out that I had no idea that the weights were erroneous before I weighed the sample for the second time on 28 1998 and that I then ensured that there was written rectifi- cation of the error, see attachments 2, 3 and 4, and that I have therefore concealed nothing. I would also like to draw attention to the unfortunate circumstances that delayed making the photographic and video records until 7 p.m. on a Friday evening with the result that no other staff remained in the unit when I arrived with the sample. I considered it necessary to weigh the sample after unpacking it and to make a documentary record, as samples must always be weighed when they are opened and I did not want to leave this one over the weekend without being weighed. This was an extremely unfortunate occurrence which I regret. The response of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science contained the following points (attachments have been excluded). The response of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science will concentrate on three issues, which are: a. whether should be reprimanded or penalised in any way for the error that she indisputably made and which she has acknow- b. whether the National Laboratory of Forensic Science has over- looked/ignored the error made in weighing the sample, c. whether the overall routines of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science or the specific routines of its Narcotic Substances Analysis Unit contain deficiencies that may have given rise to or at least contributed to the occurrence of errors of this kind. The error itself. When the error was discovered, which was by herself, she did not in any way try to conceal the fact but reported it and then followed the National Laboratory of Forensic Sciences routines for reporting quality short-comings. The error was also reported in writing both to the prosecutor, in the form of a new analysis report, and to defence counsel by fax (see the attachments to statement). No one is infallible and we must - both at the National Laboratory of Forensic Science and other workplaces - take into account the possibility that members of our staff may for various reasons and in unfortunate circum-stances make mistakes. What is distressing is that when arise - if not dis-cover-ed in time - they may either lead to someone being charged with a graver offence than is actually warranted or that the same individual is treated too leniently by the courts. Both outcomes are fundamentally unacceptable, but they can unfortunately arise, particularly in view of the fact that the National Laboratory of Forensic Science deals with 18,000 cases each year (of which 12,000 involve narcotic substances of various kinds). Moreover, each and every one of these cases often involves several different kinds of substances that have to be analysed and examined. The time this takes has to be kept as short as possible so that the and prosecution authorities can comply with the periods prescribed for arrest and detention, etc. has been on the staff of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science since 1990 and during all these years she has discharged her duties in an exemplary . She has never made any mistake of this kind, as far as is known, during the period of her employment. In October 1997, she was promoted to the position of group manager, and she has acted in this capacity with great competence. Was the event ignored? It goes without saying that an event of this kind can never be ignored! A documentary record must be made and a thorough investigation undertaken to shed light on what took place. We must, for instance, ensure that no narcotic substances have vanished improperly (even though in this case the amount was less than recorded). We also have to consider whether the prosecutor should be informed of any potential criminal act and also, depending on the prosecutors decision, whether any report should be made to . The erroneous weighing was reported to the Regional Prosecution Auth-ority in , where the case was shelved after investigation (attachment 2). In view of what is said above in section a, in my capacity as Superintendent of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science I have decided to take no further measures, such as forwarding a report to , for instance. Events of this nature subject employees to a great deal of distress and I do not consider there is any justification for any form of sanction in this case. For some years the National Laboratory of Forensic Science has been in-volved in a process that will result in accreditation by SWEDAC of the majority of the methods it uses. The accreditation assessment of the Narcotic Substances Analysis Unit took place in and the outcome was a de-cision by SWEDAC to grant accreditation. One result of this quality assessment is that the routines are documented thoroughly. In this case, did not fully comply with the regulations, primarily in failing to ensure that another member of the staff participated in weighing the sample. She accounts in her statement for the reasons and the circumstances. The regulations she failed to observe can be found in attachment 3. I do not consider that any general conclusions can be drawn from this occurrence to suggest that the current routines and regulations contain de-ficiencies that need to be rectified, neither with regard to the overall routines of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science nor the specific routines of its Narcotic Substances Analysis Unit. Instead, we need to urge our staff to learn from these events and we must place even more emphasis on the importance of complying with the regulations in view of the serious consequences mis-takes may have for individuals. This is a task that I intend to entrust to the unit managers. submitted a comment on this response. In his adjudication of 14 2000, The Parliamentary Ombudsman, , included the following observations. It is of course extremely important that the analyses conducted by the National Laboratory of Forensic Science of samples of evidence are performed with the utmost precision. Erroneous results can lead, for instance, to inappropriate decisions in criminal cases both with regard to the assessment of the evidence and the sentences meted out. My enquiry into this case has made it clear that the National Laboratory of Forensic Science is well aware of this and has therefore based its routines on extremely stringent demands of accuracy. Nevertheless an error was made in this case. What has come to light does not, to begin with, provide me with any grounds for undertaking further examination of the routines of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science. When it then comes to culpability for what occurred, my assessment is as follows. In reporting her results after weighing the narcotics she was analysing on 12 1998, happened to include the weight of half of the bottle containing the substance. The result was that the total weight of the narcotics stated in the report is 460.5 grams greater than it actually was. When she weighed the sample, she disobeyed the National Laboratory of Forensic Sciences regulation that another member of the staff should have participated in doing so. My opinion is that these shortcomings mean that has failed, or at least neglected, to fulfil her obligations and in doing so is guilty of misconduct. I am therefore referring the case to for it to consider whether disciplinary measures are called for. On 22 2000 de-cided to impose a disciplinary sanction on in the form of an admonition. This decision gained the force of law. Criticism of a municipality that violated the freedom of expression of one of its employees by reprimanding her for having spoken to outsiders about circumstances at her place of work. (Registration numbers 2522-1998 and 4738-1999) On 1996 adopted the following criteria as the basis for determining the salaries of its employees: ability to work in a team ability to take initiatives ability to attain predetermined goals complaint (Registration number 2522-1998) On 8 1998 submitted a complaint against the Municipality of to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. He requested investigation of the legality of the "loyalty ", whether its introduction could be considered unlawful and if the imposition of reprisals on any individual on the basis of this would constitute a criminal act. He also asked the Parliamentary Ombudsman to seek legislative changes if such an imposition could not be considered unlawful. The case was referred to statement. Its response contained the following. On 8 1998 the decided that the concept of loyalty would no longer be one of the criteria in negotiations concerning future re-- views of salary levels. The minutes of the session at which this decision was made are attached to this response. From the way it was presented it can be seen that the salary level criteria were to be taken as a whole and were intended to encourage staff to take responsibility themselves and work together. The municipality has allocated funds to projects that are intended, for instance, to incorporate staff perspectives. The municipalitys information policy explicitly establishes the right of its staff to freedom of expression. "Both employees and elected representatives have complete freedom of expression about their own and municipal activities." "The information is intended to . encourage municipal employees to participate in debates and discussions about the activities of the municipality . to give staff the opportunity to safeguard their benefits as employees and to influence these activities." The complainants own wording more than adequately expresses the opinion of the municipal council when he writes "Where loyalty to decisions that have been made is concerned, it goes without saying that employees cannot through their actions openly defy these decisions and therefore invalidate them in practice. On the other hand it is equally obvious that those concerned have complete freedom - like all other citizens - to criticize these decisions openly and in public without any reprisal." There was never any intention to restrict freedom of expression. However, because of the risk of misinterpretation of the concept the decided to remove it. Attached to this response was a memorandum, dated 10 1998, containing the proposal to the that the concept of loyalty should no longer be one of the criteria taken into account at future negotiations regarding salary levels. submitted his own comments on this response. In it he asserted that the criteria of solidarity/loyalty had been invoked on at least one occasion in negotiations about the salary of , a teacher, and that she had also been cautioned for certain comments she had made about her colleagues and her place of work in front of outsiders. complaint (Registration number 4738-1999) On 1999, herself submitted a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman against the Municipality of , in which she alleged that she had been discriminated in three salary negotiations - on 1 1996, January 1 1997 and 1 1997 - for reasons that included the fact that as an elected trade union representative she had availed herself of her right to freedom of expression. In her complaint claimed that even though the criteria of loyalty had been removed, the municipality had not remedied previous discrimination by rectifying her salary. The complaint also made it clear that had been given an admonition, which had been changed into a caution after negotiations. In her complaint, also requested the Parliamentary Ombudsman to enjoin the Municipality of to grant her a pay rise from 1 1996 equivalent to that given to other remedial teachers work-ing for the municipality with comparable training and experience. She also asked for interest on this amount according to Article 6 of the Interest Act. referred to the complaint submitted by and the documents attached, one of which was a copy of the caution mentioned in complaint. This had been issued by and the in the Municipality of and is addressed to . It is headed CAUTION and has the following wording: An employment contract imposes mutual rights and commitments on both parties. If an employment contract is to have any actual effect, both parties are required to fulfil their undertakings. The commitments required of an employee include the ability to co-operate and to be loyal.