50 other ombudsman decisions of importance to the rights of persons deprived of their liberty case, a public counsel had asked to speak privately with a client before a detention hearing, but had been denied this with reference to security aspects; the individual could abscond. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision emphasised that detainees should have the opportunity to consult their public counsel undisturbed and that the police service must adapt its premises for this.9 The Parliamentary Ombudsman has also criticised the police for not having made personnel available to monitor telephone conversations from persons on remand with restrictions10 and for having neglected to ensure that suspects (principally young persons) have had access to defence counsel during questioning.11 Coercive measures Placement in isolation The Prison and Probation Service has the opportunity to isolate prison inmates for reasons including the investigation of suspected misconduct. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has emphasised that a placement in isolation is an radical measure. To ensure that the period in isolation does not continue for longer than is absolutely necessary, it is, in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s view, essential that the prison have control over which investigative measures have been taken. For this reason, it is important that a prison clearly documents all investigative measures.12 Another decision concerns an incident in which a number of inmates were placed in isolation in connection with the investigation of suspected misconduct. The action was taken in order to allow the prison to investigate “what the basis was for a risk of misconduct having been deemed to exist”. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, no incident had occurred at the time of the placement in isolation that could be investigated as suspected misconduct. There was thus no opportunity to place the inmates in isolation pursuant to the legal text cited.13 In one case, the Prison and Probation Service had placed an inmate in isolation for three months. For most of that time, the inmate had been placed in living quarters that were only equipped with a bed. The inmate was also placed under constant supervision. The Parliamentary Ombudsman found that the prison had not taken any significant action to mitigate the effects of isolation and that the inmate had thereby been almost completely isolated for 9 JO 2013/14 p. 358, ref. no. 594-2012 10 Ref. no. 3541-2011, ref. no. 65-2012 11 Ref. no. 4553-2010, ref. no. 4608-2010, ref. no. 3577-2011, ref. no. 3019-2012, ref. no. 1335-2013 12 Ref. no. 1977-2012 13 Ref. no. 4379-2013