50 | Annual Report 2019 journalist by informing him that it was in possession of the report/a draft of the report from the working group in order to establish whether that was the material to which the journalist wanted access. In this connection, the Ombudsman referred to the obligation under section 7 of the Public Administration Act to provide guidance. He added that according to the White Paper on the Access to Public Administration Files Act, there may be particular reason to provide guidance, especially when requests for access to public records have been made by media. Overall, the Ombudsman found the Ministry’s processing of the journalist’s request regrettable. 2019-23. Police assessment of need to use force during deportation not documented A woman of foreign nationality was to be deported by the police together with several other foreign nationals. The police assessment prior to the deportation was that both she and the other deportees would seek confrontation during the deportation. The woman’s hands were strapped in a transport belt for three periods during the deportation. The first period was from when she was collected at an immigration detention centre until approximately two hours later, when she had boarded the plane. The second period was from shortly before a stopover at Rotterdam until shortly after disembarkation at Rotterdam, and the third from shortly before boarding of another plane at Rotterdam until shortly after take-off. The police described the deportee’s conduct during the deportation as ‘exemplary’. The Ombudsman had no grounds for repudiating the assessment of the police of the need for the deportee’s hands to be strapped when she was collected at the immigration detention centre and to remain strapped for the first approximately two hours of the deportation. However, the Ombudsman found that there was not adequate documentation that the police had made a specific, individual assessment prior to the next two times the deportee’s hands were strapped which substantiated that the restraint was necessary and proportionate. 2019-30. Access to correspondence of Ministry of Justice with Commission of Inquiry on Customs and Tax Administration concerning establishment of IT infrastructure In a decision on a request from a journalist for access to the correspondence of the Ministry of Justice with the Commission of Inquiry on the Customs and Tax Administration about the establishment of IT infrastructure for the Commission, the Ministry stated that the correspondence had been exchanged in connection with the Ministry carrying out secretariat work for the Commission. In the Ministry’s opinion, the documents were therefore subject to section 27 paragraph (3) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act and in principle exempt from access. The Ministry stated that under section 1(5) of the Act on Commissions of Inquiry, the Minister of Justice is to see that commissions of inquiry are provided with the necessary secretariat assistance and other practical assistance. The Ombudsman found that there was not a sufficient basis for the understanding of section 1(5) of the Act on Commissions of Inquiry on which the Ministry had based its refusal. Further, the Ombudsman found that the assistance provided by the Ministry could not be considered secretariat assistance provided on a non-statutory basis. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the Ministry therefore could not refuse the journalist’s request for access with reference to section 27 paragraph (3) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act.