Criticism against the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, the Beateberg correctional facility, for incorrect review of government mail etc. Also statements on handling of such mail when they arrive with other mail.

In the decision, JO makes a statement on how a correctional facility, when examining mail, should handle mail from e.g. a private citizen or private organisation that contains a sealed letter from a government agency. She finds that the letter from the government agency should be considered government mail even if it arrives in mail from a sender that is not subject to the rules for such mail. According to her, the approach is more compliant with the basic constitutional right to communication and the rules on examination of government agency mail. Thus, the letter from the government agency can only be examined for the purpose of establishing who the sender is when the is reason to assume that this information is inaccurate.

In the decision, a correctional facility is criticised for examining a letter from a government agency for the purpose of finding out whether it contained an unauthorised object.