6 RESTRIC TIONS ON VISITS AND LEAVE tional Board of Institutional Care made changes to one or more introduced restrictions depending on the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s assessments of the risk of the spread of Covid-19. According to the Prison and Probation Service’s description of a routine, visits and leave would only be permitted when the Public Health Agency of Sweden deemed the risk of the spread of Covid-19 as low. The Swedish Migration Agency also stated that its administrative decision to restrict visits would apply until that time. The National Board of Institutional Care stated in its supporting documentation that denied leave could only be implemented once the Public Health Agency of Sweden had changed its assessment of the risk of the infection spreading. Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson stated she understood the need for the Prison and Probation Service to consider the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s assessments. When assessing the need In her opinion, howfor further restrictions, the ever, the Prison and Prison and Probation Ser- Probation Service vice consider all relevant must continuously consider relevant circircumstances. cumstances in assessing whether there are grounds for further restrictions. In this process, the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s assessments must be taken into account, but the Prison and Probation Service must also consider other factors. These can be with regard to, inter alia, the availability of testing for Covid-19, the type of leave in question and whether it is possible to receive visits at a physical distance. The Parliamentary Ombudsman then stated the following:19 19 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 30 June 2020, ref. no. O 122020. “The fact that the Prison and Probation Service has linked the duration of the measures to the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s assessment of the spread of infection in the manner specified might give the impression that the Prison and Probation Service has transferred responsibility for decision-making to another agency. The wording can also send the signal that the situation is beyond the Prison and Probation Service’s control, and, as such, the agency cannot or does not need to take any measures to ensure that inmates can once again receive visits, etc. For these reasons, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Prison and Probation Service, even in a crisis, making independent assessments of whether control and coercive measures decided are proportionate, and whether it is possible to achieve the same purpose with less intrusive measures.” Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling made a similar statement in his decision. Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant stated the following in his decision after investigating the Swedish Migration Agency:20 “The administrative decision has had far-reaching effects for detainees in the Swedish Migration Agency’s detention centres. In my opinion, an agency should regularly review these types of intrusive measures, in order to ensure that they do not last longer than necessary. The Swedish Migration Agency should, therefore, have limited the validity of the decision to a specific final date and thereafter made a new, time-limited decision on the prerequisites for it to continue to exist. In its review, the Swedish Migration Agency must naturally consider the Public 20 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 9 October 2020, ref. no. O 182020. – 52 –