The Prison and Probation Service has three buildings with a particularly high security classification. These premises are situated in the prisons Hall, Kumla and Saltvik (so-called high security units). The buildings were built to receive inmates covered by decisions pursuant to chapter 2, section 4 of the Prison Act implementing that the inmate is to be placed in a security unit. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously criticised the Prison and Probation Service for the fact that the high security unit at Saltvik prison has partly been used for the placement of inmates who should not be placed in security units, but who for various reasons need protection. Within the framework of this enquiry, the Parliamentary Ombudsman will continue to investigate how the Prison and Probation Service use these buildings.

The investigation has shown that the Prison and Probation Service, despite previous criticism, has not taken necessary measures to adjust the situation for inmates in need of protection, who are placed in high security units. These inmates are still subject to more intrusive surveillance and control than is necessary. The Parliamentary Ombudsman finds this remarkable. Moreover, the Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service for taking a decision to establish shelters at Hall prison, despite the fact that the prison was not able to adapt their activities for these inmates as at Saltvik prison. It has also emerged that the Prison and Probation Service, during the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s ongoing investigation, decided to place groups of inmates, who are not covered by decisions on security placement, in high security units. This is a worrying development, according to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman does not question that the Prison and Probation Service has an urgent need to locate more space, due to the problematic occupancy situation. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, however, it is not acceptable to place inmates within premises that hold more intrusive surveillance and control that what is necessary, violating the provisions set out in the Prison Act. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the Prison and Probation Service must be able to cater for an inmate’s needs for e.g. protection, regardless of the degree of surveillance and control that an inmate otherwise needs. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also holds that the high security units do not offer a flexible space and are limited in terms of adaptations to be able to compensate for the closed environment.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service due to the deficiencies that have been observed within the framework of this enquiry. A copy of the decision is sent to the government for knowledge.