Criticism of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Mariefred Prison, for its processing of an inmate with a protected identity

Summary of the decision: A person with a protected identity was admitted to Mariefred Prison. Prison staff initially addressed him by both his first and surname in an area frequented by other inmates. After being made aware within the scope of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s processing of the case that the inmate wished to be addressed by his first name only, staff have only used his first name.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that an inmate’s identity may be divulged if staff address them by an unusual first or surname or a complete name in areas frequented by other inmates. This may both cause suffering and place the inmate or their family in danger. While this is true regardless of whether or not the inmate has a protected identity, the risk of negative consequences is of course usually greater if the inmate has a protected identity.

A facility must adapt the method of identification to the circumstances of each individual case. Despite the fact that the client administration system contained the information that the person in question had a protected identity, Mariefred Prison did not initially consider how he should be addressed by staff. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the prison is deserving of criticism for this.

This case shows the Parliamentary Ombudsman that there is reason for the Swedish Prison and Probation Service to consider preparing general procedures for processing inmates with protected identities.