6 RESTRIC TIONS ON VISITS AND LEAVE mentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson found reason to emphasise the importance of the Prison and Probation Service making an individual assessment of each and every application for leave. In a later version of Annex 7 (dated 8 April 2020), the Prison and Probation Service stated that only such leave as the agency deemed absolutely necessary could be granted until the Public Health Agency of Sweden assessed the risk of the disease posing a risk to the general public spreading as low. According to the Prison and Probation Service, this could be, for example, for emergency dental visits. The annex further stated that already granted leave would be revoked, and that new leave would normally be refused until the spread of infection was assessed as low. Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson stated that there should be no sweeping instructions that leave already granted should be revoked “as a general rule” and applications for leave “in normal cases” should be rejected. This risked sending the wrong signal that there was no need for any individual assessments of applications received. The National Board of Institutional Care At the outbreak of Covid-19, the National Board of Institutional Care decided to limit residents’ opportunities to spend time outside of its institutions. The decision did not affect residents’ opportunities for outdoor access to, for example, exercise yards or spaces directly adjacent to their departments. The National Board of Institutional Care’s supporting documentation showed that only leave outside the department that was necessary, or that could take place without the risk of infection, could be carried out. This could be, for example, time spent outside the home to participate in an oral hearing in court, an urgent home visit or an outdoor activity. In his decision, Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling stated that if it was applied correctly, the routine would result in only leave that entailed a risk of spreading Covid-19 being cancelled. The National Board of Outdoor activities that enInstitutional Care had tailed such a risk were permitted only where deemed a reasonable balance necessary. In the opinion of between the need for the Parliamentary Ombudsinfection control man regarding applications for leave, it appeared that measures and residents’ the National Board of Instineed for leave tutional Care had, as such, found a reasonable balance between measures to prevent the spread of infection and the residents’ needs for, and interest in, being outside the confines of their homes. 6.3 Consequences of the restrictions imposed The Prison and Probation Service The restrictions introduced by the Prison and Probation Service meant that inmates, at least at Svartsjö prison (security class 3), were not given the opportunity for short periods of leave to spend time with their children. Previously, inmates The temporary routines could spend time outside of prison for an have meant that inmates hour and have contact have fewer opportunities with their children to have contact with their via their private cell children phones. In view of the purpose of this type of leave and the fact that there is no physical contact with another person, Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson stated that the applica- – 46 –