Criticism of a patrol commander for deciding to arrest a suspect without legal grounds and of a duty investigation leader for failing to process a preliminary investigation in an acceptable manner

Summary of the decision: A 16-year-old was suspected of a serious offence. A patrol commander decided that the youth, who was in school at the time, should be arrested. Another police officer carried out the arrest.

As a general rule, before someone suspected of committing an offence is deprived of their liberty, a prosecutor must issue a detention order. Only if the suspect must be deprived of liberty immediately and it is not possible to wait for a decision by a prosecutor may a police officer make an arrest. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the circumstances in this case did not preclude waiting for a decision by a prosecutor. Moreover, unlike a detention order, a decision by a police officer to make an arrest presupposes that the suspect is present in person. So, even as a matter of urgency, a police commander cannot decide that another police officer shall arrest a suspect in this manner. The Parliamentary Ombudsman takes a dim view of the commander’s decision to arrest the youth and criticises him for issuing the order.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also notes that the preliminary investigation should have been handed over to a prosecutor without delay, which was not the case. Nor was the prosecutor promptly notified that the suspect had been deprived of liberty as required by the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (SFS 1942:740). Furthermore, an arrest interview was conducted with the youth before the prosecutor was notified, which in this case contravened the Swedish Police Authority’s own guidelines. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticises the responsible duty investigation leader for these shortcomings.

The Swedish Police Authority is criticised for further shortcomings that emerged during the review.