frsrdg · H204JO1 · 2014-11-11 00:00:00 — censes for target shooting weapons than for those to be used for hunting. It has taken the authorities in the counties of , Västra Gö- taland, and a particularly long time to deal with applications for gun licenses during 2013. According to these authorities one of the causes has been lack of resources. The time it has taken them to deal with applications for gun licenses does not comply with the dispatch required by the Administrative Procedure Act, for which the authorities are criticised. The Parliamentary Ombudsman takes a positive view of the measures that have been adopted or are planned by the to put an end to the delay in dealing with these cases and assumes that continued focus will be devoted to this problem by the authorities. Criticism of the Swedish Customs and a prosecutor for management of a preliminary investigation and decision on arrest (2556-2013) In the course of a surveillance operation and a preliminary investigation of a serious smuggling offence F.T. He was subsequently placed under arrest and deprived of his for a total of 17 hours. out that he was innocent. The enquiry revealed that a number of unfortunate circumstances led to the apprehension of F.T. There are no adequate grounds for questioning the intervention itself. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s re- view has focused instead on how the preliminary investigation was managed from the time that F.T. had provided details about his alibi during questioning up until the moment of his release. T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman there are grounds for ques- tioning whether the investigation provided the prosecutor with adequate rea- sons for concluding that there were good grounds for suspecting F.T. of a seri- ous smuggling offence. Far too much weight seems to have been given to the few and not particularly incriminating circumstances that spoke against him. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s enquiry also produces the impression that too attention was paid to F.T’s own information and the circumstances that weighed in his favour. The grounds on which the decision to make the arrest were based were, therefore, in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s opinion, extremely dubious. The details provided by F.T. about his alibi were not checked until the morn- ing and lunchtime of the day following his arrest. It can be wondered whether these investigative measures should not have been taken with greater dispatch. The adjudication also points out that a prosecutor’s decision to detain someone must be continually reviewed and that the customs authorities are also respon- sible for carrying out investigative measures as rapidly and efficiently as pos- sible to provide material on which the prosecutor can base an assessment. Serious criticism of the Swedish Customs for a delay of more than two years in issuing a decision on an obligatory review (178-2013) When appeal is made against a customs case, the starting point for the Swedish Customs is that the decision appealed against must be reviewed as soon as pos- sible. If the review does not mean that the decision is altered in the way the appellant , the appeal and the case file must be referred to the court that is to hear the appeal. In the case of the appeal involved in this complaint, the Swedish Customs did not issue its decision after the review until just over two years after receipt of the appeal by the authority. For much of this time the reason for the delay was that no measures were taken to deal with the appeal. It has further tran- spired that periods of more than two years to deal with appeals against decisions have more or less been the norm at the support centre concerned. criti- cism of the Swedish Customs is expressed for the length of time taken to deal with these cases. Criticism of the Prison and ’ prison at Kumla for destruction of documents on which a psychologist’s expert opinion had been based (3056-2011) An inmate requested access to the material on which his own risk assessment had been based. He was then told that all the material used as the basis of the risk assessment had been destroyed. The Prison and is criti- cised for the destruction of the material. In his adjudication the Parliamentary Ombudsman observes that the Act (2008:355) applies to the psy- chological assessments made by psychologists employed by the Prison and 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N when they submit expert opinions. budsman adds that the psychologists are required to maintain records when they submit these opinions and that the material on which the risk assessments included in these opinions are based are records that have to be ar- Criticism of the Prison and ’ prison at for the way it dealt with and retained items of post sent to an inmate, etc. (5877-2011) This adjudication points out that limiting the possibility of possession of items of post involves infringement of the constitutionally enshrined right to freedom Retention of an item of post because of what it contains there- fore constitutes a manifest infringement of an inmate’s fundamental rights and has palpable impact on an individual’s legal entitlements. For this reason – in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s opinion – it cannot be a question of what could be called an “operational routine”. In addition it is pointed out that the retention of an item of post by the Prison and by virtue of Section 8 of Chapter 7 of the Prisons Act (2010:610) cannot be described as an “operational routine” either. The adjudication criticises the prison at for failing to make a clear dis- tinction in its treatment of items of post to the inmates between retention and The adjudication was sent to the and the Parliamentary The Prison and ’ routines for dealing with “official post” to inmates etc. (4465-2012 etc.) These cases involved the way in which the Prison and deals with “official post” to inmates. The adjudication states, among other things, that seizure of official post by virtue of Section 2 of Chapter 5 of the Prisons Act is an operational routine. The Parliamentary Ombudsman goes on to ex- press views about the form that a prison’s routines for the distribution of offi- cial post to inmates should take. Finally the prison at Saltvik is criticised for shortcomings in its management of delivery of official post to inmates in two An enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman into the detention of a detainee in the cells at the remand prison: this included the issue of division of responsibilities between the and the Prison and with regard to the care of detainees (3076-2012) A man who had been arrested and detained in the cells at the remand prison after a case of domestic violence was suffering from severe Even though he repeatedly requested care, about eight hours elapsed before he was examined by a physician and taken to hospi- The cells are administered by the Prison and on behalf of the . A practice had been established in which the au- thority ensured that care was provided for detainees in the cells who needed it. The responsibility for care for these detainees was not T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 clearly attributed in the agreement between the two authorities. In her adjudi- cation the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that she assumes that the authorities have systematised current arrangements in a written agreement and that written routines will be laid down about records relating for instance to care required by detainees. Her adjudication criticises the Prison and for shortcomings in its records of significant occurrences while detainees are housed in the cells. criticism of the Prison and ’ remand prison in for limiting the possibilities of detainees to make contact with the outside world even when there has been no previous decision to this effect by a prosecutor, etc. (5528-2012) This adjudication states that the remand prison in has restricted the pos- sibilities for detainees to make contacts with the outside world on the basis of Section 2 of Chapter 6 of the Act on Detention. In order to do so a decision by a prosecutor is required, which has not been the case. In practice, the lack of a prosecutor’s decision has meant that the remand prison has been making deci- sions on restrictions pursuant to Section 1 of Chapter 6 of the Act on Detention. Remand prisons are not empowered to make such decisions. criticism of the actions of the remand prison is expressed. The adjudication also contains a statement about the prerequisites pursuant to the Act on Detention for denying individual detainees the possibility of regu- lating the lighting in the rooms they occupy. An enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman into the rights of detainees in remand prisons and prisons (5529-2012) On 19 2012 the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s NPM unit visited the Prison and ’ remand prison in . During this visit it transpired that amendments to the Aliens Act (2005:716) concerning the rights of those held in custody that had come into force on 1 2012 had not led to the adoption of any measures by the remand prison. These amendments lay down that any alien taken into custody who is placed in a prison, remand prison or cell shall, in addition to the stipulations of the Act on Detention, be given the possibility of making contact with individuals outside the facility. This means that the aliens have the same right to make contact with individuals out- side the facility as those who are held in custody in premises belonging to . During the visit it became clear that an alien held in custody pursuant to the Aliens Act had not been allowed to make telephone calls to a relative for the first two weeks of his detention. An enquiry was then initiated within the framework of an own initiative investigation into the ques- tion of how the Prison and had taken the amendments to the Aliens Act cited above into account and also what instructions had been issued and what measures adopted centrally to guarantee the rights of those held in custody in remand prisons and prison facilities. The adjudication points out that those held in custody in the Swedish Mi- gration Board’s premises are entitled to unlimited and private use of mobile phones and also to the use of computers with Internet access. 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N custody in the Prison and ’ facilities have restricted possi- bilities of making telephone calls and receiving visits and lack any possibility of contact with the outside world through the Internet. In addition, according to the instructions issued by the Prison and , contacts made by those held in custody have to be checked in advance and their calls may be The conclusion is that in practice the Prison and ’ review and its instructions to the operational units concerned will not mean that the new provisions on the rights of those held in custody to be in contact with the outside world will be implemented to the full in remand prisons and prison For this no blame can be attached to the Prison and Probation Ser- vices but it shows how inappropriate it is to house aliens taken into custody in premises that are designed for individuals who are suspected or convicted of Criticism of the Prison and ’ transport services for compelling a minor taken into custody pursuant to the Care of Persons (Special Provisions) Act (1990:52) to spend a night at a remand prison in connection with his attendance at a court hearing (6939-2012) A young person held in custody pursuant to the Care of (Special Provisions) Act was being taken by the Prison and ’ transport services from a children’s home outside to the District Court in and back. The journey took two days and led to two overnight stays in a remand prison for the young person. The Prison and Pro- bation Services is criticised for the way in which this journey was planned and criticism of the Prison and ’ prison in for carrying out surveillance with the help of CCTV cameras in connection with the isolation of an inmate (115-2013) An inmate placed in isolation for eight weeks following a suicide attempt was under camera surveillance for the entire period. The staff responsible for the surveillance were in another . The adjudication states that if a prison concludes that there is a risk of self- harming behaviour, surveillance may take one of two forms: either permanent supervision in which the staff are close to the room in which the inmate is held or through inspection rounds every 15 minutes. In the second case camera sur- veillance may be used to supplement the rounds. The prison in is criticised severely for using only camera surveillance, which meant that the staff were unable to take immediate action in the event of self-harming behav- Criticism of the Prison and for failure to inform a detainee’s next-of-kin that a detention order had been enforced (1944-2013) When an individual was discharged from a prison sentence, the Prison and Pro- bation Services enforced a detention order. The individual concerned was de- tained on the grounds of a suspected crime. The adjudication points out that the T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 Prison and was enforcing a detention order and that the in- dividual concerned was detained on the grounds of a suspected crime. The ad- judication goes on to say that it was therefore the duty of the Prison and Proba- tion Services to discharge its obligations pursuant to Section 21a of Chapter 24 of the Procedural Code. The Prison and is criticised for fail- ure to inform the individual’s next-of-kin about the detention by telephone. The adjudication states that in situations in which a relative or close friend is to be informed as laid down in Section 3 of the Ordinance on Detention (2010:2011) or Section 21 of Chapter 24 of the Procedural Code, the Prison and must, on its own initiative, ask the detainee whether he or she wants some relative or close friend to be informed. In addition it points out that the point of departure must be that a telephone call is the normal method and that in each specific case an individual assessment must be made of how this infor- mation is to be provided. The adjudication also states that the remand prisons should keep records of the decisions made about whether a relative is to be informed or not and if so how this was done. If a relative is informed through a telephone call this should be included in the records. An enquiry initiated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman into the Prison and ’ handling of cases about placement in security units The Prison and may under certain conditions place inmates in what are called security units. This may be to avoid escapes, attempts to free them or their continuation of serious criminal activity while serving a sentence. Placement in units of this kind means that inmates are subject to more extensive inspections than other inmates. Placement in a security unit has to be reviewed at least once each month. Complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman during inspections of the se- curity units at the prisons in Kumla and Saltvik made it clear that there was widespread dissatisfaction among the inmates about the way in which the Prison and justifies decision to place them in security units and the way in which the review of these decisions took place. For this reason the Parliamentary Ombudsman initiated an enquiry into how the Prison and dealt with these placements. On the question of the wording of the Prison and ’ initial decisions it is stated that the agency must endeavour to provide a clear and explicit account of where the different items of information in the decision have come from and what importance they have had for its assessment. This is re- quired to create a more transparent system that the inmates can understand. In addition, it is important for the inmates to understand the grounds on which the decision is based so that they can begin the process of change that in most cases is required for them to be able to affect their placement. With regard to the monthly review decisions, it is pointed out that in them the Prison and must account for circumstances that have arisen since the initial decision. This may include, for instance, the length of time inmates have spent in a security unit and their conduct and participation in programmed activities. In addition the Prison and must 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N analyse the significance of these new circumstances and why – if the agency chooses not to make any changes – they are not enough to affect the original The review decisions should be viewed to no small extent as evalua- tions of the time spent by the inmate in the security unit which can help the inmates to understand what actions they can take to affect their own situation. Criticism of the Prison and ’ prison at Saltvik for inadequate justification of a permission about leave, etc. (3266-2013) In a decision on temporary release (leave) a prison facility made the assessment that an inmate’s son should be considered a victim of crime. In the view of the facility, certain aspects of the court’s judgment suggested that it was extremely likely that the son had been a spectator of the inmate’s violent treatment of his The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s adjudication states that the summary and description provided in a court’s judgment in a criminal case do not reflect the issue in its entirety and that the wordings used are intended for other purposes than the interpretation arrived at by the prison. a prison should as a rule restrict itself to collecting concrete information from the criminal judgements and not indulge in different kinds of interpretation. Furthermore it had been the intention of the prison before making its deci- sion about leave to contact the inmate’s ex-wife in order to find out whether her son would be at the address at which the inmate would be staying during The adjudication emphasises that a prison may – when assessing whether there is a risk of criminal activity or wrongdoing by the inmate in con- nection with the leave – decide, for instance, that the leave has to be supervised to prevent the inmate from making contact with the victim of a crime. measures prisons may adopt have in common is that they impose different re- strictions on the inmate during the leave period. The recourses available to a prison do not include, however, attempts to govern or influence the actions of third parties in connection with the leave – as the prison at Saltvik attempted In addition grave criticism of the prison at Saltvik is expressed for short- comings in the wording of the decision about leave. Criticism of the Prison and ’ prison at Saltvik for the way in which, within the framework of a victim support programme when prisoners are discharged, a warder made contact with a relative of an inmate, etc. (3591-2013) An inmate in the prison at Saltvik had been granted permission to speak to his son on the phone. The victim support programme linked to discharges con- tacted the son’s custodian to find out how she experienced the calls that the inmate had made to his son. The adjudication states that two measures may be adopted by prisons if there are reasons to question the suitability of an inmate continuing to have telephone contact with a minor. They may either revoke the permission to make calls, or report their concerns to the social services. other hand, prisons should refrain from contacting relatives to follow up the outcome of a permission that has been granted. Doing so would lead to the risk of going beyond the ambit of the Prison and and becoming T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 014 /1 5:JO1 involved in activities that fall within the domain of the social services. The tasks of the Prison and do not include investigating poten- tially suspicious circumstances concerning children nor providing assistance or help to the victims of crime. If, nevertheless, a prison undertakes this kind of follow-up, it must do so impartially. The adjudication criticises the prison at Saltvik for the way in which a warder expressed his own views while speaking to a relative about the telephone calls that had been made. Criticism of the Prison and ’ prison at Salberga for shortcomings in the reasons given for withdrawal of a permit to visit etc. A favourable decision cannot, in principle, be revoked or altered to an individ- ual’s disadvantage by the authority that has made it, unless new circumstances have arisen. In certain situations, however, it is possible to change a decision after reviewing the material on which it was originally based. In assessing whether there is such scope, according to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the time that has elapsed since the decision was made public must be taken into account. The possibilities of reviewing the material diminish as time passes. If, in addition, an individual has made arrangements based on the decision, for example applied for and received prison visits, the scope for review becomes even smaller. In such circumstances it is necessary, as a rule, for new circum- stances to have arisen that make it possible to question the original decision in order for it to be changed. criticism of the Prison and ’ prison at Salberga for shortcomings in a decision to place a large number of inmates in isolation by virtue of Section 8 of Chapter 6 of the Prisons Act (4379-2013 et al.) On three occasions the prison at Salberga has placed inmates in isolation by virtue of Section 8 of Chapter 6 of the Prisons Act (2010:610). The adjudication points out that three requirements have to be fulfilled if an inmate is to be placed in isolation pursuant to this provision. To begin with an event must have occurred that can result in the inmate being reprimanded or a conditional re- lease postponed. Secondly, it must be possible to link the inmate to the circum- stances that have arisen (the suspected wrongdoing). The third requirement is that a risk must exist that unless placed in isolation the inmate will make it more difficult to investigate what has happened. On one occasion (15 2013) the prison placed all the inmates in isolation in one of its in order to investigate what lay behind an assessment that there was a risk of wrongdoing and disturbances to good order and security. The adjudication points out that at the time of the placement in isolation no event had yet occurred that could lead to a reprimand or postponement of a conditional release. In other words it was not possible to place the inmates in isolation by virtue of the statute cited. During the three periods of isolation the inmates were allowed shorter breaks outdoors. The adjudication points out that if a prison is to deny inmates one hour of outdoor exercise every day, an event that the prison could not fore- 2 014 /1 5:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N see must have occurred. This may be the situation, for instance, when place- ment in isolation begins. If this placement continues for some time, it is diffi- cult for the prison to maintain that the situation is one that it could not expect. This means that a prison that places an inmate in isolation is obliged to start planning immediately how the inmate can be provided with one hour of outdoor exercise each day. The adjudication expresses grave criticism of the prison at Salberga for the decisions on placement in isolation made on 15 2013 and for the ex- treme shortcomings in the subsequent investigation. In addition the prison is