110 annual report 2011 5-4. access to read action plan schedules in prison office only – section 16(3) of the Public Administration Act The spokesman for a group of inmates in a state prison complained to the Department of the Prison and Probation Service about the established practice of the prison of only allowing inmates to read their own action plan schedules in the office of the prison block when they asked for access. The Department found that it could not criticise the state prison’s practice regarding access. The Department referred to section 16(3) of the Public Administration Act and to the view that the state prison’s practice reflects the need for a balance between, on the one hand, the individual inmate’s right to be able to look after their own party interests in the best way possible and, on the other hand, the consideration of avoiding that inmates force other inmates to produce documents which detail the crime they have committed, with the subsequent risk of reprisals. The Ombudsman asked the Ministry of Justice for a statement on the case. The Ministry stated that the option provided by section 16(3) of refusing to hand over a transcript or photocopy is a matter for discretion. Consequently, a general practice whereby an administrative authority refuses to release documents without making an individual assessment will not be compatible with the provision. However, the Ministry also stated that in the Ministry’s opinion it could not be ruled out that certain types of cases could present exceptional circumstances which mean that there will generally be compelling reasons that conclusively speak against the release of a transcript or a photocopy. The Ombudsman concurred with the Ministry’s view and thus criticised the Department’s conception of the law. He recommended that the Department inform the institutions of the Prison and Probation Service of his opinion. The Ombudsman was subsequently informed by the Department that his statement had been circulated to the institutions of the Prison and Probation Service, and he then informed the Department that he would take no further action in the case. (Case No. 2010-4614-6012)