Criticism of a judge for lack of objectivity and impartiality in a case involving the appointment of an administrator

Summary of the decision: In a case before Malmö District Court involving the appointment of an administrator, difficulties arose in supplementing the investigation with a doctor’s certificate, as the individual to which the case related refused to be examined by a doctor. In an interim judgement in the case, the district court had already appointed an administrator for the individual. The presiding judge injuncted the administrator to submit a doctor’s certificate. In the injunction, the judge expressed himself in a manner that was perceived as meaning that he was of the opinion that the administrator should ensure that the individual was examined by a doctor against their will.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it must be considered doubtful whether an administrator can consent to a medical examination on behalf of an individual. In this case, the injunction gave the erroneous impression that, without further consideration and by far-reaching means, the administrator could coerce the individual into a medical examination. By formulating the injunction as he did, the judge failed to comply with the requirement for objectivity in Section 9 of Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government (1974:152).

The judge is also criticised for lack of objectivity and impartiality concerning the formulation of an injunction to the Chief Guardian Committee, as well as for certain telephone calls related to the case.