Severe criticism of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service for placing an inmate in the same wing of a prison as a person suspected of subjecting him to a serious crime in remand prison

Summary of the decision: In a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, NN stated that he had been subjected to a serious crime by a fellow inmate of a remand prison, and that he was subsequently placed in the same prison as him.

The investigation into the matter reveals that, on becoming aware that NN had been the victim of a crime, the remand prison reported the matter to the police and took measures to protect him. However, the remand prison did not document information about what he had been subjected to. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the remand prison should clearly have done so, among other things so that this information could be considered when allocating NN to a prison. Due to the lack of documentation, when allocating a place, it would have been practically impossible for the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s placement section to know that the prison in question had an inmate who had been reported to the police for a crime against NN.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service placed NN in the same wing of a prison as the person suspected of subjecting him to a serious crime in remand prison, this despite the fact that there was awareness of previous events within the agency. Irrespective of the reason, this is completely unacceptable and, in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s opinion, contravenes the agency’s obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service is therefore severely criticised.

In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes a statement concerning the treatment of NN in the prison and the processing of his application for reassignment to another prison.