Criticism of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Norrtälje Prison, for the formulation of a decision to separate inmates pursuant to Section 5 of Chapter 6 of the Act on Imprisonment. Also an opinion on the proportionality of separating all inmates on a wing in response to a strike by inmates

Summary of the decision: Inmates on a wing of Norrtälje Prison have refused to participate in their assigned occupations. In response, the prison placed all prisoners on the wing in separate confinement during working hours with the support of Section 5 of Chapter 6 of the Swedish Act on Imprisonment (SFS 2010:610).

The Parliamentary Ombudsman questions the necessity of separating all inmates on the wing given that, among other things, according to the prison’s decision the strike mainly involved inmates in industrial occupations. In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service must always consider whether a control or coercive measure is proportional to the purpose of the measure. She also points out that the fact that Section 5 of Chapter 6 of the Act on Imprisonment provides for multiple inmates to be separated from one another without each of them being connected to the circumstances on which the decision was based does not mean, for example, that all inmates on a wing must be separated.

According to the prison, it was not possible to exclude individual inmates from involvement in the strike in terms of who or which inmates were behind the strike or were influencing fellow inmates. The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not question that this was the case but notes that no such circumstances were mentioned in the prison’s decision to separate inmates. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the decision also gives the impression of being solely related to the fact that inmates assigned to occupational activities in the prison factory have refused to participate. She is therefore sympathetic if inmates who have not been assigned to the factory, or who have not been assigned any occupational activities, feel that the prison’s action constitutes collective punishment. The prison is criticised for the formulation of its decision.