frsrdg · H304JO1 · 2015-11-06 00:00:00 — For non-priority cases, SKL is of course also obliged to ensure the prelim- inary investigations can be conducted as speedily as possible. SKL and have stated that better collaboration and im- proved communication between the and prosecutors is a matter of ur- gency if processing times are to be improved. They hope for better collabora- tion and greater consensus as a result of the organisation becoming a single authority at the start of 2015. The Parliamentary Ombudsman assumes that those within the new authority will continue to devote their attention to the processing times at SKL and work actively to improve them. 2 015 /1 6: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 Criticism of the County Authority for how a body search was conducted; statements regarding the consideration principle when taking urine samples (3820-2013) The Authority suspected the person submitting the report of having used narcotics and conducted a body search of him (urine sample taking). According to the report, the person was ordered by the to leave the sample outdoors next to a bush. He felt violated by the situation. According to the Code of Ju- dicial Procedure, a body search of a more extensive scope shall be conducted and in private. The taking of urine samples is often of such a nature that it must be considered to be a body search of a more extensive scope, but there are exceptions. The deciding factor should primarily be if the person needs to expose themselves to only a small extent. For reasons of integrity, the starting point should be that urine sample taking is done in private, even when it is not extensive in nature. However, the sample should be given outdoors in connection with the apprehension if the suspect personally ex- presses a wish to do so and if the sample can be taken in sufficient privacy and with the dignity necessary, taking the suspect’s personal circumstances into consideration. In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that the body search was not extensive in nature. Taking into account what the report states regarding the incident, the sample should have been taken at a nearby station. Criticism of the authority in for submitting confidential information to a social welfare board (682-2014) A woman was suspected of drunken driving and crimes against the Narcotics Drug (own use). Since she had an under-age son (born in 1999) the authority in made a “report due to concern” to the social welfare board. The report was made despite the fact that the sample taken only showed positive results for substances found in painkillers for which she had a prescrip- tion. The preliminary investigation in respect of the crimes was subsequently closed. Information from preliminary investigations is covered by confidenti- ality regulations. officers have a duty to make a report to the social wel- fare board when they encounter in their activities, or suspect that a child is in danger; the confidentiality regulations do not then apply and such information can be submitted. However, such information is not to be submitted as a matter of routine. Each individual case should always be assessed on its own merits. When the authority submitted the information regarding the suspected crimes to the social welfare board, it must, in JO’s opinion, have been obvious that the woman was no longer suspected of any crime, and that she had purely been using normal medication, for which she had a prescription. The infor- mation did not give grounds for suspicion that her child was in danger and did not therefore entail a duty to report. The authority is criticised for its decision to submit the information. 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 2 015 /1 6:JO1 Criticism of the County for the handling of a revoked confiscation (1268-2014) A women found a large sum of money, which she handed in to the . The money was registered as lost property, and it was stated that the finder made a claim on it, and on a reasonable reward. On the following day, the launched a preliminary investigation into the suspected receipt of stolen money and confiscated the money. The preliminary investigation was however closed after a short period and the confiscation was revoked. The ’s assessment was that the money could no longer be considered lost property. Instead, it was handled in accordance with the Act on procedures for confiscated goods and lost property, etc. According to this act, the money shall be reported to the State, unless the owner or another entitled party makes a claim on it. The con- fiscated money should rightfully have returned to being handled in accordance with the provisions in the Lost Property Act. The ’s handling of the re- voked confiscation meant that the finder was at risk of losing their rights in accordance with the Lost Property Act. The County is thus criticised for its handling of the case. Prison and probation services Complaint against the Swedish Prison and ’s detention facility, regarding the procedures that the facility applies when a seizure has been revoked and the object in question is to be handed over to an inmate of the facility (4689-2013) A detention facility employee has questioned the procedures that the detention facility applies when a seizure has been revoked and the object in question is to be handed over to an inmate of the facility. According to the person filing the report, receipt of the object is acknowledged by the facility’s staff and not by the inmate themselves. In the Chief Parliamentary Ombuds- man’s decision it is noted that the Code of Judicial Procedure contains no re- quirement for the person to whom the object is returned to personally acknowledge receipt. It is also noted that the in many cases do consid- erably more than that demanded by the rules of the Code, which states that they are to inform the person in question that their goods have been seized, or inform the person in question that the seizure has been revoked and that the object can be picked up. In the light of the difficulties that a person who is detained may have in preserving their interests, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman takes a positive view of officers who help out in these situations. However, the approach of the does raise certain questions, in the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s opinion. One question is, for example, if it would not be more reasonable to let the detainee themselves decide what should be done with the object. Another question that arises is how the responsibility for the storage of an object will work when the object is submitted or sent to the detention facil- ity, and not received personally by the detainee. This can in turn be significant if the inmate wishes to direct a claim for damages against the authority storing the object. In conclusion, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman sees that there 2 015 /1 6: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 are several doubts concerning how the and the Prison and Probation Ser- vice are to act when a seizure has been revoked and the object in question is to be handed over to an inmate of a detention facility. Ombudsman makes no criticism of how the authorities currently work in these situations, but assumes that the and will review what they should do to bring about procedures that are effective and adaptable, and which at the same time guarantee that the individual’s interests are taken into consideration. Criticism of the Swedish Prison and ’s Hinseberg facility regarding the handling of a case where an intern was placed in isolation and where their implementation plan was not followed up on within the prescribed time (6766-2013) According to the person filing the report, the Hinseberg facility, in their deci- sion to place an intern in isolation, referred to documents which the intern was not aware of or could comment on until after the decision was made. to the Prison and , the documents were a letter which the in- tern had written herself. The Prison and has also stated that the information in the letter was not of crucial importance for the outcome of The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision finds that the information could be considered unimportant, as the Hinseberg facility referred to it in the decision. The fact that the information was from the intern’s letter should, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, not be afforded any significance. The Hinseberg facility is criticised for the fact that the intern was not informed that the information in the letter had been included in the case and was not given opportunity to comment on the information before a decision was made in the case. In the decision, the Hinseberg facility is also criticised for not fol- lowing up on the intern’s implementation plan within the prescribed time pe- Criticism of the Swedish Prison and ’s Hinseberg institution and for reporting certain information about an individual’s personal circumstances in decisions concerning leave and placement in isolation (392-2014) Hinseberg and have reported information from a forensic psychiat- ric investigation in several decisions concerning placement in isolation and spe- The report concerning the forensic psychiatric investigation is en- compassed by the so-called correctional confidentially in Chapter 35, Section 15 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009:400). decision, the JO states that, because the Prison and ’s deci- sions are generally in the public domain, it is important that decision-makers carefully consider what information about the individual needs to be reported in a decision. This consideration must take into account the requirement for justification pursuant to Section 20 of the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223) and the individual’s interest in sensitive information not being dis- The Prison and is criticised for having reported in- formation from the forensic psychiatric investigation in the decisions. 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 2 015 /1 6:JO1 JO’s understanding that it would have been possible for the Prison and Proba- tion Service to refrain from reporting certain information obtained from the forensic psychiatric investigation in the decisions in question without having to disregard the requirement to justify the decision. criticism of the Swedish Prison and for an intern being placed in isolation for a long time, etc. (1277-2014) An intern had been guilty of serious violent crime against another intern and was then placed in isolation at the Hinseberg prison for a long period. In the decision regarding isolation, the facility has noted that the intern needs to be placed in a section with special control. The Prison and has stated that the facility currently lacks sections that allow such internal differen- tiation. In the decision it is stated that a lack of resources or possibility of in- ternal differentiation does not constitute grounds for an intern isolated from other interns. The Prison and receives grave criticism for its actions. The actions of the Swedish Prison and ’s detention centre in in connection with separating a woman from her infant child through deprivation of (1697-2014) In conjunction with a young woman being placed in custody, she was separated from her six-week-old son, whom she was breast-feeding. The woman applied for leave. Before the application was reviewed by the detention centre, person- nel from both the services and the social services had contacted the detention centre and emphasised the importance of allowing the woman to be with her son. The reason for this was the need for bonding between the mother and child. The detention centre rejected the application for leave. In its decision the detention centre, among other things, stated that since leave in accordance with the Act on Detention can only be granted for short periods, the purpose of the “bonding theory” could not be fulfilled. According to the Chief Parliamen- tary Ombudsman, it is inappropriate for a detention centre to make these types of assessments, as it is not part of the Prison and ’s remit to make such considerations. Instead, the detention centre’s assessment should have been limited to the matter of whether there were especially urgent grounds to approve the application and if there were security concerns that would stop the granting of leave. Considering such facts as the leave application concerned a mother’s contact with an infant which was still being breast-fed, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman believes it to be clear that the requirement for es- pecially urgent grounds was met. In its decision, the detention centre also stated that it could not be “ruled out” that the woman could commit crimes or abscond from leave. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is unreason- able to have such far-reaching requirements when examining an application for leave. There is always a risk that an intern mismanages their leave, but the risk of this varies between cases. When examining the application, the detention centre must therefore make an assessment of how big the risk is, and then weigh this against the intern’s need for leave. The detention centre can then determine 2 015 /1 6: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 if it is reasonable that the intern is allowed to spend time outside of the deten- Criticism of the Swedish Prison and , Salberga Prison, for taking measures not within the bounds of the authority’s commission, etc. In connection with placing inmates in solitary confinement, the Prison and Pro- bation Service, Salberga Prison, has regularly turned off the water in the in- mates’ living quarters. According to the prison, this measure is taken in situa- tions where it is suspected that the work of the prison staff, and also in some cases the , can be hindered. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, this is a restrictive measure. The decision states that it is not pos- sible to assert that in every case it would be disproportionate to turn off the water, so turning off the water in every case thereby constitutes an illegal However, such a measure is not to be used indiscriminately and it must be preceded by an assessment of proportionality. The Prison and Probation Ser- vice’s commission does not extend to taking initiatives to secure evidence on behalf of other authorities. It is therefore surprising, according to the Chief Par- liamentary Ombudsman, that the prison would regularly turn off the water to prevent hindering the work of the . The Prison is criticised for having acted outside the bounds of the Prison and ’s commission. The decision furthermore contains statements regarding the inmates’ right to an hour of outdoor activity per day and the hiring of interpreters. Criticism of the Swedish Prison and , Prison, for the handling of a document containing information pertaining to a certain inmate with “protected identity” (1993-2014) The complainant’s identity is marked with a “secrecy indicator”. the complainant, documents containing his name and the information that he has a “protected identity” have been handled in a way that would allow other inmates access to them. As far as the prison in is concerned, it has not been possible to determine what type of document was involved. the decision that there is no cause to reprimand the prison in . other hand, the prison in is reprimanded for handling an attendance sheet used at a examination in such a way that there was a risk of other in- mates seeing the information that the complainant has a “protected identity”. JO states in the decision that, in the choice of whether or not to write “protected identity” on a document, the Prison and must take various different interests into consideration. On the one hand, the authority needs to use this note in various contexts as a warning to its own staff. hand, it is of course in the inmate’s interest that there is no risk that the infor- mation regarding their protected identity is revealed. If the Prison and Proba- tion Service chooses to write “protected identity” on a document, this document must, according to JO, be handled in a way that ensures that this information cannot be revealed. 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 2 015 /1 6:JO1 Criticism of a civil servant from the Swedish Prison and ’s institution for having replaced suspected narcotics found in the facility with baking powder (2299-2014) When staff found suspected narcotics in the institution’s workshop, an inspec- tor from the Prison and decided that the powder found would be replaced with baking powder. All the inmates that had been in the workshop was then searched. The aim of this action, according to the Prison and Proba- tion Service, was to attempt to gain clarity as to who was involved in the sus- pected trade in narcotics. The JO considers it to be very serious that the Prison and has in this case assumed the ’s role of investigating an offence subject to public prosecution. The inspector from the Prison and is seriously criticised for their actions. The JO is also critical of the fact that the institution did not report the discovery of the suspected nar- cotics to the . Criticism to the Swedish Prison and , Remand Prison, for shortcomings in terms of its obligation to keep records, etc. (4313- 2014) An inmate was placed in solitary confinement during their internment at the Remand Prison. At the time of this confinement, the inmate was , and should therefore be considered a minor. In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises that the Prison and must exercise great caution when subjecting minors to coercive measures. If a minor is placed in solitary confinement, the Prison and has a particular responsibility to ensure on the one hand that the solitary period is as brief as possible, and on the other that measures are taken to interrupt the iso- lation. Furthermore, the proportionality assessment that is always to be con- ducted in connection with coercive measures must place particular emphasis on the fact that the measure involves a minor. In the decision, the Chief Parlia- mentary Ombudsman reprimands Remand Prison for not having documented the reasons for limiting the inmate’s access to clothing during one instance of solitary confinement. Criticism of the Swedish Prison and ’s institution for not having discharged the Service’s obligation to inform the injured party in accordance with Section 35 of the Prison Ordinance (5182-2014) Pursuant to Section 35 of the Prison Ordinance, if an inmate serving a sentence for a crime that has been directed at someone’s life, health, freedom or peace, the injured party has to be asked whether they wish to be informed about, for example, the inmate’s leave and when the inmate is to be released. In their decision, the JO stress the importance of the Prison and Probation Service com- plying with this obligation. The Prison and ’s insti- tution is criticised for failings in its handling of the injured party’s request to be kept informed in accordance with the stated provision. 2 015 /1 6: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 Criticism of the Swedish Prison and , Fosie Prison, for shortcomings in the processing of requests for outdoor access, etc. (5775- 2014) Whilst interned at the Swedish Prison and ’s Fosie Prison, an inmate was granted supervised leave on several occasions in order to receive treatment at a hospital. The investigation shows that the accompanying staff member was regularly present in the examination room as the inmate was ex- amined by the physician. The secrecy implemented within the health services takes precedence over that applied by the prison and probation services. This, in combination with it being fairly common for inmates to undergo private and sensitive examinations when visiting the hospital, means that the basic proce- dure, according to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, must be for the inmate to be examined by a physician in private, even when they are on supervised leave. Penal institutions have a great responsibility, in consultation with the hospital in question, to plan hospital visits in such a way that the accompanying staff member does not have to be present during the examination. In the deci- sion, the Fosie Prison is also criticised for shortcomings in the processing of a request for outdoor access. Severe criticism of the Swedish Prison and , Remand Prison, for shortcomings in the treatment of an inmate, etc. (6413- 2014) At the end of October 2013, the Prison and requested the to transport an elderly woman to a prison for the execution of a short term of imprisonment. The request was carried out by the on 28 2014 and the convicted person was brought by the to the remand prison in . Upon arrival at the remand prison she was put under surveillance due to her advanced age and her “uncertain” state of health. The remand prison took no further measures to investigate her condition, such as having her ex- amined by staff. Not until the day after her arrival did she meet with the remand prison nurse, and she was transported to the prison in later that day. On 30 , an on-call physician noted that the inmate was con- fused and dehydrated, and that she needed to be taken to hospital immediately. The JO decision severely criticised the remand prison in for not giv- ing the inmate access to the healthcare she needed, and for deciding to have her transported to the prison in despite her poor health. The remand prison is also criticised for not informing the Prison and ’s place- ment unit of the inmate’s condition, which resulted in the prison not being able to prepare for her arrival and to a delay in finding a more suitable placement. The prison in is also criticised for waiting to alert the on-call physician, even though the inmate was in such a poor condition that she was found on the floor of her quarters. The JO decision also contains statements regarding the Prison and ’s procedures to request assistance in trans- porting convicted persons to prison. 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 2 015 /1 6:JO1 Serious criticism of the Prison and for serious shortcomings in the processing of cases by a prison facility (6760-2014) In conjunction with an inspection of the Prison and , Prison, serious shortcomings were identified in the prison’s processing of mis- conduct cases and cases concerning the placement of inmates in isolation. JO’s decision noted that there have been errors and deficiencies on a scale that is totally unacceptable. Among other things, the processing of the misconduct cases has dragged on. One of the explanations for this is that the prison has for some time had an acting Prison Governor who has had to handle a “change- over period”. The decision states that this cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the deputy initially did not have sufficient knowledge to be able to carry out his work tasks. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Prison and must have such an organisation in place that change-over periods do not arise. It is not in with the Act on Impris- onment’s requirements regarding expedited procedure that misconduct cases remain unprocessed due to holidays, illness, staff turnover or the like. The de- cision also notes that Prison bears a large part of the responsibility with regard to detecting and correcting any deficiencies that have been found in the processing of cases. However, the prison is not solely responsible.