8 THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S INSPEC TIONS OF REMAND PRISONS 2015–2019 and administering meals. […] Previously, staffing was increased to enable isolation-breaking work. However, this no longer happens because it is considered more important that the prison stays within its budget. This creates frustration amongst staff who feel they cannot work with isolation-breaking measures to a sufficient extent.”35 During an inspection of Jönköping Remand Prison in March 2018, the remand prison management stated that staff have little time for working with isolation-breaking measures. This is because the number of transportation stopovers has increased at the remand prison and staff have to spend more working time on this task.36 The strained occupancy situation has meant that Kalmar Remand Prison has used “restriction rooms” for the placement of inmates. The rooms are normally used for isolation-breaking measures. When used for the placement of inmates, they cannot be used for the purpose for which they are actually intended.37 8.7 Placing inmates in segregation factors such as vacant cells and the composition of the group of inmates. If an inmate could not be offered such a place in the remand prison, then the placement section or a coordination function in the Stockholm region was contacted to arrange a place in an association department in another remand prison.38 Similar routines were also applied at the remand prisons Helsingborg and Kronoberg.39 During an inspection of Sollentuna Remand Prison in February 2017, it emerged that segregation decisions made for security reasons were not reviewed regularly.40 Based on the findings which emerged from an inspection of Helsingborg Remand Prison in September 2015, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to investigate, inter alia, the Prison and Probation Service’s routines for reviewing decisions on segregation in an own-initiative inquiry. The investigation in this case showed that the Prison and Probation Service lacks standardised routines in this matter and, as a result, each remand prison has introduced local routines. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman stated the following: “The existence of local routines on an issue such as this jeopardises the predictability of the different remand prisons’ assessments in such a way that similar cases risk not being assessed equally. This is also shown in the Prison and Probation Service’s reporting, for example, of an inmate demonstrating good behaviour as a prerequisite for being placed in association with other inmates. In my opinion, this situation is deeply unsatisfactory. […] In summary, I believe that it is important that all restrictions to In section 2.5, it states that there are no requirements for the Prison and Probation Service to regularly review decisions to place an inmate in segregation. During the inspection of Huddinge Remand Prison in January 2017, it emerged that the remand prison had a routine every Friday to review the decisions regarding inmates who had been placed in segregation. This involved making an assessment as to whether the decision could be revoked and the inmate placed in association. In making this assessment, the remand prison took into account 35 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O-27-2019 p. 5. 36 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 1364-2018 p. 10. 37 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 26-2019 p. 5. 38 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 416-2017 p. 6. 39 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 4632-2015 p. 16 and report dnr 417-2017 p. 6. 40 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 419-2017 p. 9. – 54 –