On the allocation of occupational activities among inmates

Summary of the decision: In light of a complaint from an inmate of retirement age with special needs in terms of occupational activities, in this decision the Parliamentary Ombudsman expresses an opinion concerning the regulation of such activities in prisons. She notes that an inmate must be offered the opportunity for occupational activities in the form of work, education, treatment programmes or some other structured activity, and that this also applies to an inmate of pensionable age who cannot be assigned work.

While there is no detailed legal guidance on how a prison should allocate occupational activities when there is a shortage thereof, the Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises that one point of departure must be that available occupational activities must be fairly distributed, and that objective reasons are required to differentiate between inmates. In doing so, she recalls the constitutional principle of objectivity, i.e., that administrative authorities and others performing public administration functions shall pay regard in their work to the equality of all before the law and shall observe objectivity and impartiality. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, given the great importance of occupational activities to prison inmates, another point of departure must be that allocation does not leave certain inmates without occupational activities.

The investigation in this case reveals that there were a limited number of other structured activities available at the department of Kumla Prison in which the complainant was placed, and that priority was given to inmates subject to an obligation to take part in an occupational activity when allocating places. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has the impression that the prison erroneously assumed that this arrangement is supported by the Act on Imprisonment (SFS 2010:610), which would be entirely unacceptable.

Given the facts that have emerged in the case, including that the prison has offered alternative activities to further meet the needs of inmates of retirement age for occupational activities, there is insufficient reason for criticism. However, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is important that the prison works actively to provide all inmates with greater opportunities to take part in suitable occupational activities.