Criticism of the Swedish Police Authority for questioning a 17-year-old suspect without the presence of defence counsel despite his objections

Summary of the decision: A 17-year-old was suspected of minor drug offences, including minor drug smuggling. He objected to being questioned without defence counsel and gave the name of the lawyer he wished to have as his defence counsel. Despite this, he was questioned without the presence of any defence counsel. In so doing, the police failed to respect the suspect’s fundamental right to defence counsel. Nor was this action consistent with the principle that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Swedish Police Authority is criticised for this.