The question of whether information about the treatment facility where an individual is staying due to a court-imposed care order can be subject to a secrecy provision pursuant to Section 3 a of Chapter 21 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act

Summary of the decision: A defendant with a protected identity was sentenced to probation with a court-imposed care order to follow a specific treatment model. A treatment plan attached to the judgement included the name of the residential treatment facility at which the defendant was to stay.

According to Section 3 a of Chapter 21 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (SFS 2009:400), in court cases when a party has a protected identity, secrecy applies to information that may disclose the party’s permanent or temporary residence, unless the information can clearly be disclosed without the individual or any member of their family being subjected to violence or suffering other serious detriment.

One question in this case is whether this secrecy provision covers information about a treatment facility at which the defendant may reside as the result of a court-imposed care order. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, details of an impending stay at a treatment facility must be considered to be information that may disclose an individual’s temporary residence. The secrecy provision was therefore applicable to information about the treatment facility. The presiding judge ought to have considered whether information about the treatment facility could be subject to secrecy. He cannot escape criticism for having failed to do so.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also criticises the district court for failing to document information supplied to the district court by telephone about the threat facing the defendant.