Criticism of Uppsala District Court for the processing of data concerning a witness with a protected identity

Summary of the decision: A witness in a criminal case notified the district court that she had a protected identity. The complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen concerns the disclosure of the witness’ name and workplace in the verdict.

The information that the witness had a protected identity was not documented by the district court and was not passed on to the judge. As a result, the witness’ workplace was stated in the verdict without any consideration of whether the information was subject to secrecy. The district court is criticised for this. There was not, however, any applicable secrecy provision concerning the name.

According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, a court must have procedures detailing the measures to be taken when the court is informed that a witness, party or someone else has a protected identity. Such procedures must ensure that the information is documented and reaches those who need it.