Annual Report 2015 Forensic psychiatric centres Contraband The Inspectorate VenJ examined the risks related to contraband being smuggled into TBS24 clinics and what the clinics are doing to prevent this. The Inspectorate VenJ concluded that five of the seven clinics investigated had an insufficient understanding of the risks related to the smuggling, by unescorted TBS detainees in psychiatric care, of contraband containing metal. In a number of cases these patients were not checked at the entrance or they were able to pass contraband on before they were checked. The Inspectorate refers to the failure to identify this as "a serious point for attention", but at the same time acknowledges that TBS clinics have since dealt with the situation adequately. The Inspectorate VenJ wants TBS clinics to do more to prevent drugs from being smuggled into the clinics. The State Secretary of Security and Justice concurs with this recommendation and has stated that he will have drawn up an action plan to improve security before 1 January 2016, or so he wrote to the House of Representatives in his response to the "Contraband in Forensic Psychiatric Centres" report of the Inspectorate VenJ. Leave practice in forensic psychiatric centres case review It was found in late February 2015 that a forensic psychiatric centre, in implementing an authorisation for patient leave, granted the patient more freedom than was permitted under that authorisation. The authorisation permitted the patient to visit their family for one day. However, the centre also allowed the patient to stay the night with family, while the unescorted leave authorisation did not permit overnight stays. The Inspectorate VenJ investigated the circumstances of this incident. It also investigated whether the incident was an isolated case or an example of a more widespread practice. Insufficient opposing views were brought in because of changes in the organisation and the choice to keep this case in the portfolio of a director due to its complexity. The opposing views voiced by the administrative department and the legal expert were at some point ignored. The Inspectorate VenJ deems the lack of an opposing view and of objective process monitoring to be contrary to the principle of due care. The position of the centre became more complex over time. On the one hand, it was implementing a rehabilitation policy based on the agreements with the Ministry of Security and Justice laid down in a 2001 memorandum and the judgments of various courts of justice, but on the other hand, the Ministry of Security and Justice repeatedly refused to grant authorisation for leave applied for under that same rehabilitation policy. This resulted in the course of action deemed best for the patient by the centre in view of the treatment and the July 2001 memorandum being at odds with what was officially authorised by the Ministry, causing a deadlock that influenced the decision made in the present case. The Inspectorate VenJ therefore concludes its investigation by finding that the forensic psychiatric centre held to too broad and erroneous an interpretation of the unescorted leave authorisation granted. A lack of opposing views brought in in this 24 If someone is placed under a hospital order (TBS) with compulsory treatment, that person is admitted to a so-called TBS clinic. 14 Table of Cont