sou · GTB354 · 2006-01-01 00:00:00 — The present rules on visits, telephone calls and letter contact are to be transferred to the new Act. New rules are to be introduced which enable the Prison and to decide that visits are to be controlled by use of a visiting room, which is designed in such a way as to make impossible the handing over of objects, i.e. visiting rooms with a glass partition. However, the main rule is to be that if a visit is to be controlled, this is to take place by staff being present during the visit. The visiting room with the glass compartment may only be used if this is insufficient for reasons of security and the alternative would be for no visits to take place. However, a visiting room of this kind may be used in other cases at the request of the prisoner. According to the Act, the prisoner and the visitor may be locked in during the visit. With a view to obtaining rules independent of technology, it is proposed that the ability of the prisoner to communicate with persons outside the prison by telephone calls or other electronic communications be regulated uniformly in the Act. The rules on inspection of letters are, in principle, transferred unchanged to the new Act. The Prison and can in certain cases refrain from notifying a prisoner that a letter has been retained. It is clarified in the Act when copies, translation, recordings or records made in connection with control of a visit, electronic communication or letter may be destroyed. It is further clarified that information that has emerged during a control of this kind may be used in the work of security and crime prevention. Control of prisoners and visitors, etc. A provision is included in the Act to the effect that the prisoners shall be controlled to the extent that it is necessary to maintain good order and security at the prison and that a prisoner who is placed at a place with particularly high security is to be kept under particularly high control. Provisions are also included in the Act that the Prison and may investigate all areas at a prison and all property found at the prison. shall also have the right to photograph the prisoners. The pro- visions on body searches, testing and other physical inspection and on handcuffs during movement within a prison are transferred in principle unchanged to the new Act. The Commission considers that general surveillance by camera may take place at the prison in accordance with the rules in the special legislation to that effect. The Commission further considers that consideration should be given to rules on electronic surveillance of prisoners at the prison after the ongoing trial activity has been evaluated. The Commission recommends that control of visitors etc. by general entry control are to apply until further notice and that it be made possible for the Prison and to check vehicles and objects in connection with vehicles entering or leaving the prison. It is further proposed that the Prison and may use the information obtained in control of visitors, etc. in the security and crime prevention work. A prisoner who engages in misconduct may be given a warning. An overall assessment of the prisoners conduct can also lead to the prisoner being demoted to the basic level in the privilege system or to conditional release not being granted. Temporary stay outside the prison for humanitarian reasons A prisoner can be given permission for a temporary stay outside the prison to limit serious damage from a long-term sentence of imprisonment or if there are special distressing reasons. The Prison and shall decide on the conditions and control that is to apply to such stay outside the prison. A system of privileges is to be applied during the prison sentence The motivation and taking of responsibility of the prisoner should be made use during implementation by introduction of a system of privileges. At the start of implementation, the prisoner shall be given a basic range of privileges (the basic level). A prisoner who complies with the enforcement plan and also otherwise complies with the rules that apply for enforcement may be granted special privileges by being promoted to a higher level. If the prisoner no longer complies with the demands made on him or her, the prisoner shall be demoted to the basic level. Matters relating to promotion or demotion are to be considered in connection with review of the enforcement plan. Issues relating to promotion from the basic level are to be reviewed very other month. The privilege system in practice The more detailed regulations on the privilege system and its content are shown by regulations notified by the Government or the Prison and . However, the Commission is presenting certain assessments of how these could be designed. The Commission considers that there should be four levels in the privilege system: a basic level (level 1) and three higher levels (level 2, 3 and 4). The Commission considers that the following special privileges can be used in the privilege system: the possibility of having ones own room; a greater range of occupations, higher payment levels, increased ability to have own possessions, access to more of the Prison and property, a greater range of TV programmes, the ability to have and wear own clothing, an increased component of self-administration, an increased range of leisure activities, increased association time, more generous terms for contacts with the outside world, the opportunity for stays outside the prison to be granted within the framework of the system for facilitating reintegration into society and more intensive content in work with preparations for release. There should be certain basic rights for all prisoners, regardless of the level they are on. It should accordingly always be possible to obtain leave for strong humanitarian reasons. All prisoners shall be able to have a certain number of visits by those nearest to them and also to be able to call them. Special consideration is to be given to the prisoners children. Facilitation of reintegration into society A person serving a prison sentence shall be able to stay outside prison as a component is a successive facilitation of reintegration from the prison to life outside. It is recommended that the opportunity to stay outside the prison be expanded. The reintegration measures that can come into question are leave, the work release system, care stay, at a half-way house, and release with electronic tagging. It is generally the case in these stays outside the prison that the prisoner must be at a higher level in the privilege system. There must furthermore not be a risk that the prisoner, during the stay outside the prison, will engage in criminal activity, evade completion of the sentence or engage in misconduct in another way. The work release system, care stays, at a half-way house and electronic tagging are to be planned so that the measures can continue until the date that the sentenced person is granted conditional release. The Prison and may impose conditions for stay outside prison. If the conditions for stay outside prison are no longer met or if the sentenced person does not comply with his or her obligation, the Prison and shall rescind the decision on stay outside prison. The sentenced person shall then be returned to prison. Conditional release is the last component of measures to facilitate reintegration into society. The stay outside prison is as a rule counted as sentence served. Exceptions can be made if the sentenced person does not comply with the conditions applicable to the stay. The current rules on leisure activities outside the prison and leave are combined into a single form for temporary stay outside the prison, called leave. Leave may be granted for a short period on one or a few occasions per month. Leave outside may only be granted if there are exceptional reasons. One prerequisite for leave is to be that the prisoner has complied with his or her obligations under the enforcement plan. The sentenced person shall have served at least a quarter of the sentence, although at least two months. If there are special reasons, leave may also be granted earlier. The conditions that apply for stay outside prison are to be attached to the leave. The Commission does not make any recommendation on electronic control of persons on leave. It shall continue to be possible for a prisoner to have work release during daytime to work, to take part in education or training, to obtain treatment or to take part in some approved activity. The area of application for work release is considerably expanded. If the prisoner has been promoted to the highest level in the privilege system, he or she may be granted work release for the whole 24-hour period (extended work release). Extended work release requires that occupation and housing have been organised. The sentenced person shall furthermore have served half of the sentence, although at leas six months. Expanded release can be combined with conditions that the sentenced person shall remain in his or her home at certain times. This condition may be checked by means of electronic aids. A prisoner shall be able to stay outside the prison for a longer period before conditional release at a home for and requisite care and treatment (care stay). If the prisoner interrupts a stay at a family home or other institution prematurely on his or her own initiative, only a third of the time that the prisoner has spent outside the prison shall be deducted from the sentence as time served. However this does not apply if special reasons exist to deduct a longer period. The Commission recommends that an opportunity be introduced for prisons to stay in one of the Prison and Probation Services controlled housing facilities, half-way houses. Certain of the rules that apply on stay in prison also apply to such . For stay at a half-way house to come into consideration, it is required that at least half of the sentence has been served, although at least six months. It shall be possible for the homes to be run by private organi- sations. detailed regulations on this and the homes otherwise are to be notified by the Government or authority designated by the Government. The current possibilities for facilitating re-integration with intensive supervision are to be maintained under the name of electronic tagging. The opportunity for voluntary activities should be increased the longer the period the prisoner has stayed outside the prison in this form. It shall also be possible to grant electronic tagging as an introduction to work release at night. The Commission recommends that the rules on conditional release be given an increased facultative component. Conditional release is to take place when two-thirds of the sentence has been served unless there are exceptional reasons against this. The assessment of whether there are exceptional reasons against conditional release is to be made on the basis of the conduct of the prisoner during enforcement of the sentence. If the sentenced person has stayed outside the prison at home for care and , conditional release shall as a principal rule take place when the care at the home is to be concluded in accordance with the plan drawn up. Decisions on conditional release are made by the Prison and . Appeal may be made against the decision if conditional release is not granted. If conditional release does not take place at the stipulated time, the matter is to be taken up again at a later date. The rules for supervision after conditional release and during probation should be the same to the greatest possible extent. The Prison and shall in good time before conditional release consider whether the prisoner shall be subject to supervision after release. A decision on supervision shall be made if during the consideration or subsequently it emerges that supervision is needed to reduce the risk of the sentenced person committing crimes after release. Probation shall be combined with supervision in accordance with current legal provisions. The period of supervision shall continue to be a year. The Prison and may decide that supervision after conditional release is to be terminated early if no longer required. The Prison and may make a decision on extended supervision if the sentenced person does not comply with his or her obligations. As at present, supervision shall not continues after the end of the period of conditional release. An official at the Prison and (corresponding to the present employed probation officer) is to be appointed as probation officer. Unless there are special reasons, a suitable lay person for the task is to be appointed as support person during the period of supervision (corresponding to the present lay probation officer). The Prison and shall decide on appointment of probation officers and support persons. It shall be stated on the judgment on probation which probation office is to be responsible for supervision and how the sentenced person can make contact with officials at the office. A person who is made subject to supervision shall be clearly informed at the beginning of the period of supervision about the conditions that apply to supervision. If the sentenced person is in prison, he or she may already have met the probation officer before the conditional release. If the sentenced person is not in prison, a meeting shall take place as soon as possible. In the case of probation, the first meeting after the beginning of the period of probation shall take place at the latest a week after the judgment. The obligations of the supervised person The supervised person shall be obliged to maintain contact with the probation officer and support person in accordance with the provisions in the enforcement plan. The supervised person shall furthermore be obliged to notify the Prison and of his home address, occupation and other circumstances of significance for supervision. A person sentenced to probation shall be obliged at the latest within a week of the judgment to contact the responsible probation office. The court shall draw attention to the obligation in the judgment. The supervised persons shall keep regular contact with the probation officer and the support person. The frequency of contact and time, place and way of the contacts are to be stated in the enforcement plan. The contacts that have been and the outcome of these are always to be noted. Apace with the sentenced complying with his or her obligations under the enforcement plan, the contact frequency can be reduced. The Prison and takes over the ability of the probation committees to notify and rescind special directives on what is to apply during the period of supervision. provisions notified by the court may only be changed if new circumstances have emerged after the judgment that entail that the directive should no longer apply. A new directive may be notified if it can be assumed to reduce the risk of the supervised person committing new crimes or to facilitate supervision during the period of supervision. A possibility of making it obligatory to provide blood, urine and breath tests in community service is to be introduced. If it is needed to reduce the risk of the supervised person committing new crimes, the Prison and shall be able to notify a special provision that the supervised person shall take part in specially arranged activity (programme activity). The Prison and shall check that the sentenced person complies with his or her obligations and complies with the conditions for supervision. The checks are to take place, in among other ways, by contact calls and reports from the support person and by obtaining information from other authorities, etc. If the sentenced person does not comply with his or her obligations during the period of supervision, the Prison and may notify a warning, extend the period of supervision and conditional release, notify or change special provisions on what is to apply during supervision or notify conditions on the obligation to keep contact with the probation officer and the support person. If such a measure is not considered sufficient, the Prison and may declare the conditional release forfeit, although at most for fifteen days on each occasion. If the misconduct consists of new crimes, the court shall in the first place decide whether the conditional release is to be forfeit under the provisions of section 34 of the Penal Code. If more intrusive measures are required during probation, the Prison and shall request that the prosecutor institute proceedings to change probation into another sanction. The existing possibility of detaining the sentenced person shall remain. The Prison and shall take over the powers of the probation committees to make such decisions. Under the current prison treatment legislation, the sentenced person has extensive possibilities to request decisions in individual issues and to appeal against the decisions. There are not only several different decision-making and review instances but also superior bodies to the same court of first instance. This leads to a system that is hard to overview, which is not least to the detriment of the person wishing to appeal against a particular decision. The starting point for the Commission is that the system of decision- making and appeal within the Prison and is to be simplified and made more uniform at the same time as guaranteeing the legal security of the sentence person. The Commissions recommendation on enforcement better adapted to the individual means that the Prison and must make many assessments. A system of this kind requires legal security guarantees to avoid the risk of injustices and arbitrariness. One such guarantee is that the sentenced person is able to appeal against a decision that is negative for him or her. However, there are other ways to safeguard legal security. The circumstance that decisions are made at a suitable level by persons with sufficient knowledge and competence may be seen as a guarantee for legal security as well as the opportunities for review of decisions. A well-functioning supervision of the application of the rules and a good insight into the activity also reinforce legal security. The Commission wishes to underline that it is important that there is an effective supervisory organisation at any rate within the Prison and and that this includes representatives for the public. Decisions are to be made by the Prison and The Commission recommends that the Prison and shall, in principle, make all decisions concerning enforcement of a sanction administered by the Prison and . In the view of the Commission, an arrangement of this kind provides good opportunities to create a simpler and more uniform process of decision-making than previously. It is also the Prison and that is best informed about the sentenced person and on the current circumstances. Making the decisions there is therefore a prerequisite for an effective and appropriate planning of enforcement. With respect to opportunities to appeal against decisions, the Commission has had the starting point that it shall be possible to appeal against decisions that appear as particularly intrusive or restrictive compared with what can normally be considered to follow from the sentence imposed. It shall not be possible to appeal against other decisions, unless it otherwise follows from Convention. It shall be explicitly stated in the law which decisions may not be appealed against. The Commission also recommends that the opportunity of appealing against norm decisions, i.e. decisions that do not relate to particular cases and which are appealed against to the Government, shall be abolished. With regard to the issue of which or which bodies are to consider appeals from decisions by the Prison and , the Commission consider that it cannot be considered to be an appropriate solution and probably not either in compliance with the Convention to allow the probation committees or the National Prison and to be the final instance for decisions, which, according to the Convention, are to be considered by a court. A general court of law or a public administrative court must accordingly be the final body for at any rate some decisions by the Prison and . Already under the current legislation, the general administrative courts consider many prison and probation decisions. The Commission consider that it appears directly inappropriate to allow the general courts to consider these decisions. there are no strong reasons that speak against a general administrative court also considering prison and probation decisions that are now considered by general courts. It is accordingly possible to achieve a uniform system only if appeals from the Prison and decisions in enforcement issues are considered by the administrative courts. The Commission finds therefore that the general administrative courts should be the final instance for the enforcement decisions of the Prison and . With regard to the probation committees and the Prison and , the Commission considers that the committees have per se performed well and provide scope for good insight into the work of the Prison and . The Commission has, however, recommended that the decisions made today by the probation committees as first instance shall instead be notified by the Prison and . This will entail a large change for the committees. Even if they were to consider the same kind of cases to a great extent, it will be a matter of reviewing decisions of the Prison and . In the view of the Commission, it is not so appropriate for appeal to be considered by an agency that is not freestanding in relation to the body that made the decision even if there is subsequent possibility of appeal to a court. Of greater importance is, however, the requirement for swift court consideration of issues relating to deprivation of that follows from Convention. If the probation committee were to consider the decisions of the Prison and on detention, this would entail a delay in consideration by a court. A delay of this kind cannot be considered acceptable. With regard to the Prison and , it should further be taken into consideration that, according to the Commissions recommendations, there will be fewer cases for the for to consider. The Commission has also found that cannot be the final instance for decision where court considerations required. The Commission does not either consider justified the cost of the necessary changes of the organisation of the committees would require. The need for insight into the activity of the Prison and can furthermore be met by lay jurors taking part in the decision-making of the administrative courts and by special supervision measures within the Prison and . A uniform and fast decision-making system with good opportunities to clear practice will only be possible to implement if the decisions of the Prison and can be appealed against to an administrative court. The Commission therefore finds that the probation committees and shall be abolished. Rules on handling cases With regard to the handling of prison and penal administration cases, special rules shall guarantee swift consideration of the case that entail specially intrusive measures and which entail deprivation of . To retain the insight into the activity of the Prison and that the probation committees and have entailed, the lay jurors shall serve in the court when considering, among other things,, conditional release, forfeiture of conditional release and termination of certain measures to facilitate reintegration into society. The Commission also recommends that the sentenced person shall be entitled to a public counsel in the cases where this entitlement exists today and in connection with consideration of conditional release. Furthermore, the sentenced person shall be entitled to oral proceedings in the most intrusive measures.