Criticism of Falu District Court for deficient processing of matters of secrecy. Also a statement that the court should have contacted the social welfare board that requested secrecy

Summary of the decision: On his own initiative, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed Falu District Court’s processing of certain matters concerning secrecy in a custody case.

A social welfare committee applied for custody of a child to be transferred to two specially appointed guardians. In the documentation, it was stated that the committee was of the opinion that, among other things, the personal details and address information of the specially appointed guardians should be subject to secrecy with reference to the child’s safety, and that secrecy also applied to the respondent. With reference to the fact that the information was already disclosed with regard to the respondent, the district court sent all documents to them. The district court’s judgement – which among other things contained the names and personal identity numbers of the specially appointed guardians – contained no decision on secrecy. In its opinion to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the district court stated that the information in question had already been made public when the documents were sent to the respondent, and that thereafter the conditions for secrecy no longer existed.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that information cannot be considered to have been made public solely on the grounds that it has been communicated to one party to a case. There was therefore reason for the district court to give further consideration to secrecy when adjudicating the case. Furthermore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the district court has failed in its processing by not stating applicable secrecy provisions. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is generally critical of the district court’s processing.

In his decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it would have been appropriate for the court to contact the social welfare committee before issuing a summons to clarify the implications of the request for secrecy, or at least informed the committee of its position on whether secrecy applied.