Criticism of a judge at Sundsvall District Court for a delay in holding remand hearings. Also general statements concerning the deadline for scheduling remand hearings
Summary of the decision: As the on-call court, on a Friday afternoon a district court received applications for remand orders in three cases. On the Friday, the district court scheduled remand hearings in the cases for Sunday.
Pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 13 of Chapter 24 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (SFS 1942:740), if an application for a remand order has been submitted, the court shall hold a hearing on the matter without delay. Pursuant to the second paragraph, the hearing may never be held more than four days after the suspect was apprehended.
According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, a remand hearing must take place as soon as possible after the application for a remand order has been received. Under normal circumstances, this would mean that the hearing should be held on the same day as the application was received, or on the next day. If there is any notable reason – such as a request for a specific defence counsel, difficulty in arranging a competent interpreter, or that the suspect must be transported a long distance – there ought to be scope to delay the hearing, as long as the four-day limit is not exceeded. However, in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, there is no leeway for cost or what is practical for the court to have any bearing.
In the case in question, the district court did not examine the possibility of holding the hearings on the Saturday and no specific circumstances preventing the hearings being held then have been recorded. Nor have any notable reasons come to light for holding the hearings on Sunday instead. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, under the circumstances the district court cannot be deemed to have held the remand hearings without delay. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman takes a grave view of this and finds the responsible judge to be deserving of criticism.