48 | Annual Report 2019 press release and offered interviews with, among others, the Minister of Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It had been planned in advance that the counsel who had been assigned to the gang was to be informed about the Minister’s decision later than the two media – more specifically not until five minutes before the news would be made public by the media. The Ombudsman found that a news exclusive should not have been used in the case. In this connection, the Ombudsman stated that exclusives can be used particularly in cases of a political nature, but that the specific criminal case was not a case of a political nature. The Ombudsman further stated that using an exclusive may leave the impression that the Prosecution Service considers a specific criminal case to be of a political nature – and that extraneous political considerations may therefore have played a part in the case. In addition, the Ombudsman found that informing the two media about the Minister’s decision before the counsel was informed – and the procedure which was planned by the Ministry in this regard – was clearly contrary to good administrative practice. Further, the Ministry’s failure to respond to two other media which inquired about the case was contrary to the administrative law principles of equality and legitimacy. Overall, the Ombudsman found that the Ministry of Justice had committed significant errors in the case and that its course of action did not underpin confidence in the Prosecution Service. 2019-4. Police use of force to reduce screaming and shouting during deportations During a forced deportation of a rejected asylum seeker, the deportee offered resistance by, among other things, screaming and shouting on the plane. In order to reduce the shouting, the police officers escorting the deportee restrained him and bent his head towards his chest several times. The Ombudsman asked detailed questions about the use of this technique. Among other things, he asked the police whether the technique could involve a risk of obstructing the deportee’s free breathing. The police subsequently arranged for the technique to be demonstrated to a doctor. In the doctor’s assessment, the technique would not cause airway problems if the person’s head was only held briefly in this position and the hold was released when he or she calmed down. The police also informed the Ombudsman that before the technique is used during a deportation, the escorting police officers are required to try to quieten the deportee down verbally. In addition, the deportee must be informed that the use of force will be discontinued when he or she calms down. The fact that the police use force in certain situations to reduce screaming and shouting during deportations did not give the Ombudsman cause for comment. In the light of the medical assessment, the technique which had been used by the police also did not give him cause for comment. However, the Ombudsman recommended the National Police to include directions on how the technique is to be used, and on what conditions, in the internal guidelines of the police on escorted deportations by air. The use of force during the specific deportation did not give the Ombudsman cause for comment. The police had informed the Ombudsman that the police report on the deportation did not contain adequate documentation of the use of force, and the Ombudsman agreed. 2019-6. Danish police officers did not neglect obligations during deportation Two legal case officers from the Ombudsman’s office were present at a forced deportation by the police of a number of foreign nationals. On arrival in the country