The decision concerns prerequisites to uphold a legally secure process, in a case concerning an issued warning, pursuant to the Prison Act.

A prison guard who had drawn up a report of suspected misconduct participated in the interrogation with the inmate as a record keeper and witness and also as an interpreter. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is of the opinion that the prison guard should not have participated in the interrogation and that her participation could affect the inmate’s confidence in the process and the authority. In addition, it was inappropriate for the prison to choose the prison guard as an interpreter. The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the prison for not having observed the principle of objectivity and for not having hired an outside interpreter for the interrogation. The prison is also criticized due to deficiencies in the case documentation.

The inmate was issued a warning that he, among other things. expressed himself in a way that could be perceived as threatening. The decision refers to the misconduct as “violence or threats against an official”. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that there may be a need for simple pre-selected phrases in a systematic report but points out that the designation corresponds to certain crimes pursuant to the Penal Code. The fact that the Prison and Probation Service uses the same nomenclature may give the impression that it has been clarified that an inmate has committed a crime, despite the fact that the case can only be processed through a criminal case. The inmate’s complaint also suggests that he interpreted the decision as a warning also due to violence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the designation give rise to concerns and that there may be reason to separate the occurrence of violence from threats, against prison staff.