Summaries of selected statements | 73 The Ombudsman stated that the case illustrated a number of difficult questions about the scope of application of section 29 of the Act which had not been addressed in the formulation of the provision. This was especially true of the question when an internal specialist assessment concerning a political initiative that has already been made public can be regarded as ‘part of’ the case about the political initiative within the meaning of section 29 of the Act. The Ombudsman found that the doubts in relation to this question had to be clarified in connection with the processing of specific cases in which the question arose. In the specific situation, the Ombudsman found no grounds for repudiating the view of the Ministry of Justice that the specialist assessment was not ‘part of’ the case concerning the press release of 10 February 2016. In reaching this conclusion, the Ombudsman gave weight to the context of the internal specialist assessment (i.e. communication between two ministries about a response to a specific press enquiry) combined with its timing. 2018-35. Decision on re-incarceration of parolee was not brought before the court ‘without undue delay’ On account of a parolee’s non-compliance with the parole conditions, the Department of Prisons and Probation made a decision that the parolee was to be re-incarcerated to serve the balance of his sentence, and he was therefore returned to prison. The man demanded that the decision be brought before the court for review under section 112 paragraph (7) of the Corrections Act. The Department of Prisons and Probation did not forward the case to the court until almost two months later, and the inmate complained to the Ombudsman about the Department’s proces­ sing time. Under section 114(1) of the Corrections Act, a case such as the present must be brought before the court ‘without undue delay’. The Ombudsman stated that in his opinion this means that the preparation of a case which has been requested to be brought before the court under section 112 of the Act must progress continuously. The Department of Prisons and Probation informed the Ombudsman that the long processing time was due to an error on the part of the Department. However, the Ombudsman pointed out that the Department had had several chances to discover the error as the inmate’s lawyer had contacted the Department several times, requesting a reply to whether the case had been brought before the court. The Ombudsman considered it very regrettable that the Department of Prisons and Probation had not ensured that the case was brought before the court sooner. In the Ombudsman’s opinion a processing time of almost two months, including an eight-week period during which the case was at a standstill, was not in line with section 114(1) of the Corrections Act. In addition, the Ombudsman decided to open an investigation on his own initiative of the Department’s general practice in relation to bringing cases before the court under section 112 of the Corrections Act in the light of the requirement under section 114 of the Act that such cases must be brought before the court ‘without undue delay’. 2018-36. Refusal of access to information about, among other things, resources used by police in connection with football match A journalist requested access to information about the resources used by the police in connection with a specific football match. The police district denied the journalist access in the form of an extract of data (section 11 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act) on the grounds, among others, that the police district did not have one or more databases from which information about the total economic resources used could be extracted.