Criticism of the Prison and Probation Service, Skogome prison, for management, after sleeping pills were found in a double-occupancy cell

After two sleeping pills were found on the floor of a double-occupancy cell, at least one of the two inmates placed there was reported for suspected misconduct in breach of regulations. The prison found that the misconduct was proven, but that it should not lead to a warning. The decision stated that the inmate is personally responsible for anything found inside their cell.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the description in the report is on the brief side, inter alia, because it fails to give details of the circumstances of the discovery. According to her, the grounds for the decision itself do not fulfil the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and she is critical of the prison’s handling of the case. In this context, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that a starting point which in practice means that inmates who share a cell are considered responsible for everything that is there cannot be considered compatible with the requirement of objectivity and that an individual assessment of circumstances must be made in each case. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen believes that a suspicious object must actually be able to be linked to an inmate in order for misconduct to be investigated and that it is important that the Prison and Probation Service does not compromise the legal certainty of inmates sharing a cell now that double occupancy is becoming increasingly common.

As the Parliamentary Ombudsman is currently carrying out a series of inspections to examine in particular the consequences and risks that double occupancy of remand centres and prisons can have for persons deprived of their liberty, she assumes that there will be reason for her to return to questions relating to this.