Summary of the decision: Someone close to a woman referred to as NN in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report contacted the police to express concern that NN was being subjected to violence by her boyfriend. NN had suffered a black eye and said that, among other things, her boyfriend had kicked her and pulled her hair, since when it had not been possible to reach her.

A police operator passed on the information to a police patrol, which was dispatched to NN’s home. On arrival at NN’s home, NN told the patrol that she was fine and that the injury to her face had been inflicted by her child. A police report was not filed until the following morning, when a duty investigating officer reviewed the incident report from the previous evening.

Assault is an offence that falls under public prosecution. If a police officer becomes aware of such an offence, she or he has a duty to report the matter, which is usually done by filing a police report. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the information passed on to the patrol by the operator was in itself grounds to file a police report.

Meanwhile, the patrol was dispatched to NN’s home to check on her wellbeing and whether she required assistance. Given the situation, it is acceptable that this was prioritised over filing a police report. However, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a report should have been filed immediately after the officers visited NN. The fact that NN herself did not wish to report the matter to the police – something that is not uncommon when an offence is committed in a close relationship – is irrelevant in this context.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises the importance of filing a police report without undue delay. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the delay in this case could have made a decision on whether to initiate a preliminary investigation more difficult and delayed appropriate investigative measures. The Parliamentary Ombudsman takes a grave view of this and criticises the Swedish Police Authority for the delay in filing a police report.

Summary of the decision: In a decision several years ago, the Parliamentary Ombudsman called attention to a number of procedures within the Swedish Prison and Probation Service involving cell name plates, and welcomed the agency’s stated intention to look into the matter.

It is now apparent that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service has neither implemented any strategic work to identify alternative solutions for identifying inmates, nor given any consideration to national guidance. The agency has stated that work is still required to develop national guidelines on cell name plates. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is regrettable that this has not been done earlier and expresses surprise that no action whatsoever appears to have been taken concerning the matter

The issue of identifying inmates is complex and involves a difficult weighing up of interests, not least in the present strained situation with increasing numbers of inmates on most wings of Swedish remand prisons and prisons, with inmates sharing cells and many newly recruited prison officers. It therefore appears to the Parliamentary Ombudsman that there is a significant need for guidelines on the use and design of cell name plates.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman assumes that the work of preparing written guidelines on the use of cell name plates in remand prisons and prisons is now underway. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service must ensure that institutions use secure methods for identifying inmates that are also consistent with the rules on secrecy and the processing of personal data, as well as the requirement for enforcement to be designed to counteract the negative consequences of deprivation of liberty.

Summary of the decision: During a discussion with a teacher, a head teacher raised the fact that the teacher had initiated an individual meeting with the Swedish Schools Inspectorate at which she expressed opinions about the school’s activities in connection with an inspection of the school.

According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the teacher had reason to perceive the head teacher’s statements during the discussion as a reprimand for exercising her constitutional freedom of expression. The head teacher has thereby acted in contravention of the constitutional ban on reprisals. The head teacher is criticised for this.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that one prerequisite for effective supervisory activities is that employees feel free to contact and speak to a supervisory authority, and that an employer should in fact encourage them to do so.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman therefore takes a grave view of violations of freedom of expression originating from an employee speaking to a supervisory authority. In the long term, such violations also pose the risk that employees will refrain from approaching a supervisory authority for fear of management’s displeasure.