Criticism of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Beateberg Prison, because an inmate was deemed to have breached regulations by expressing dissatisfaction with slow processing. Also general statements concerning the agency’s work to address undue influence

Summary of the decision: An inmate was reported for attempting to exert undue influence because, in a request to possess tax returns in his cell, he wrote that he would like the request to be processed “without delay,” that “I expect prompt action,” and “improvement”. It appears that he had submitted the same request twice without receiving any response. The prison determined that the inmate had breached regulations and conditions on enforcement, as by formulating his request in this way he had attempted to influence the work of prison officers.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously addressed these issues and once again takes a positive view of the efforts of both the Swedish Prison and Probation Service in general and individual facilities to address undue influence. She emphasises that it is equally self-evident that prison officers should not need to tolerate such intimidation as that inmates must be able to, for example, express their dissatisfaction or make requests concerning the processing of a matter without this automatically being treated as undue. While the reported misconduct did not result in a warning, it may have direct consequences for the inmate. Any assessment of whether a given action constitutes a breach of regulations must therefore be characterised by objectivity, common sense and respect.

In the present case, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that there was clearly no attempt to exert undue, or unlawful, influence. Characterising the inmate’s action as undue also strikes her as a gross exaggeration. The prison is criticised for its processing.