THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S INSPEC TIONS OF REMAND PRISONS 2015–2019 an inmate’s opportunity to associate with other inmates are made through decisions that have explicit legal support. The regulation should, for example, state how long such a placement can last. There should additionally be an obligation to review decisions at specific time intervals. In my opinion, the Remand Prisons Act and the system now applied by the Prison and Probation Service have obvious shortcomings, and it is therefore important that the law is amended.”41 During the inspection of the Helsingborg Remand Prison, it was also revealed that the remand prison did not make any segregation decisions when inmates with restrictions were placed in the remand prison’s observation department. The reason for the placement was instead simply noted down.42 In the above-mentioned All limitations to the decision, the Chief Parright of association liamentary Ombudsman with other inmates must stated that there may be be explicitly provided situations where the Prison and Probation Serfor in legislation vice is obliged to make a decision to segregate inmates who are subject to restrictions. The agency must make a decision on segregation if the restrictions set by a prosecutor are not deemed sufficient to maintain security. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, this arrangement, whereby different remand prisons have different routines for if and when a segregation decision is made, constitutes a serious shortcoming. For this reason, legislation needs to 41 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2018/19 p. 146, dnr 5969-2015. 42 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 4632-2015 p. 15. 8 be clarified on how the prerequisites for the Prison and Probation Service’s decisions on placing inmates in segregation relate to the restrictions set by a prosecutor.43 There can, for example, be reasons to take a decision to segregate for security reasons as it is deemed necessary to restrict the amount of equipment in an inmate’s cell. This is only possible by placing the inmate in segregation.44 During the inspection of the Helsingborg Remand Prison, it emerged that a female inmate – who was undergoing methadone treatment – had been placed in the remand prison’s restriction department initially due to the fact that she had been given restrictions. When the restrictions were lifted, she was still placed in the same department. The remand prison had informed her that she was not allowed association with other inmates due to her ongoing treatment. During the inspection, she had been placed in the restriction department without restrictions for two months. The reason for this was that the remand prison had a policy which meant that inmates undergoing methadone or substitution treatment should not associate with others. Based on this finding, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman stated, inter alia, the following: “At the time when the restrictions were lifted, the inmate […] should have been given the opportunity to associate with other inmates during the day, provided that it had not been judged necessary for security reasons for the inmate to be segregated. In such a case, the remand prison would have made a decision on this. The Remand Prisons Act provides 43 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2018/19 p. 146, dnr 5969-2015. 44 See chap. 1 § 17 FARK Prison and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2013/14 p. 287, dnr 4507-2012. – 55 –