The matter of whether an adjournment to a main hearing exceeding one week was necessary due to special circumstances. Also whether the court should have adjudicated the matter of remand in conjunction with the adjournment

Summary of the decision: In a criminal case at Gävle District Court involving three remanded youths, the district court adjourned the main hearing for 10 days. As a general rule, if the defendant is in detention the hearing must be resumed within one week. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the conditions did not exist to plan the main hearing in the manner that has occurred.

In their decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that a court must consider whether the circumstances that exist or that are presented to support an adjournment of proceedings are of such gravity that it is necessary to adjourn for more than one week. Furthermore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman underlines that it is ultimately the responsibility of the court to ensure that a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure (SFS 1942:740) on adjournments to a hearing. The responsible judge is criticised for allowing this to happen.

Prior to the adjournment, two of the detained suspects petitioned to be released and the district court adjudicated whether they should remain on remand. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the district court should have adjudicated this matter with regard to the person who did not petition for release. In the absence of explicit rules on this issue, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman does not express any criticism concerning the failure to do so. There was, however, a deficiency in as much as the deliberation of the district court on the matter of remand was not documented.