A psychiatric clinic where patients are under care pursuant to the Forensic Mental Care Act, primarily, applied a code of conduct which entailed a general ban on certain verbal communication between patients and certain property.  

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the current ban on certain verbal communication, limits, to some degree, the freedom of speech pursuant to chapter 2, section 1, of the Instrument of Government. A limitation of a constitutional regulated right postulate that the limitation holds legal support, in this matter this was not the case. The codes of conduct that the clinic applied thereby lacked legal support. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the clinic. However, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman further states that there may be valid prerequisites, within a separate case, to limit verbal communication. 

When it comes to banning the possession of records the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there is no legal support to restrict a patient’s right to possess certain property. In this respect, the clinic has made up regulations that lack legal support. The clinic receives severe criticism also due to this fact. Regarding the requirement on legality and predictability the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that the statute regulated possibility to prohibit the possession of certain items does not entail prohibiting keeping records in a separate case.  

A decision to ban certain property cannot be appealed. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that a capacity to appeal such a decision would, among other things, enhance an increased rule of law for inmates within psychiatric care and forensic psychiatric care. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, the regulatory framework for patients' property ownership needs to be subject to review. Therefore, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman will propose, to the government, to initiate a review of the legislation.