opcat inspections and follow-up ombudsman decisions that the right to outdoor access is normally an unrestricted right that the police must satisfy. It is therefore vital that the police service guarantees this as soon as possible. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also pointed out that it emerged that several police detention facilities lacked procedures for informing inmates of their right to outdoor access. Where procedures for this did existed, they appeared to be inadequate in many cases. For example, it was unclear who was responsible for providing this information. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision emphasised the importance of an inmate being informed of their right to outdoor access in order for him or her to have the opportunity to exercise this right. Furthermore, the National Police Board has announced its intention to produce new regulations for police detention facilities, including provisions concerning information to inmates about the opportunity to spend time outdoors each day. In view of the inadequate procedures the investigation has revealed, the Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that it was vital that these regulations come into force as soon as possible. Outdoor access in the prison and probation system The meaning of what constitutes “exceptional reasons” for not offering outdoor access has been discussed in two decisions from 2013.4 One decision concerned an inmate who had been forced to wear handcuffs in the walking yard because the doors to the remand prison’s exercise yards lacked “handcuff hatches”. If the inmate had not accepted wearing handcuffs, there would, according to the remand prison, be exceptional reasons for denying him daily outdoor access. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it would have been possible for the remand prison to anticipate the need for handcuff hatches, thus rendering the exception to the Act on Detention inapplicable. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it should not be possible – if circumstances are within the authority’s control – for the Prison and Probation Service to deny an inmate outdoor access with reference to deficiencies in the physical environment and inadequate staffing levels. The second decision discussed an incident in which the Prison and Probation Service, when separating inmates, had denied an entire section daily outdoor access for a number of days. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Prison and Probation Service can deny inmates outdoor access in the initial stage of a period of isolation. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman however, if the isolation period is protracted, it can hardly be claimed that the situation is unforeseen. Immediately after a making a decision on isolation, a prison is thereby obliged to commence planning so as to make it possible to offer inmates one hour of daily outdoor access as soon as possible. 4 Ref. no. 1864-2013, ref. no. 4379-2013 39