District Police Commissioner Håkan Jaldung, of the Västra Götaland County Police Department, is to be notified that he is suspected of the crime of unlawful deprivation of liberty alternatively, and on the second count, of either grave misuse or misuse of his official powers.

The EU Summit Meeting in Göteborg on June 14-16, 2001, was a special event of the kind that led to the establishment by the Västra Götaland County Police Department of a specific Operational Command Unit. Håkan Jaldung, District Police Commissioner with the Police Department was appointed to head this unit and in this capacity was empowered to make decisions on behalf of the County Police Department. The Regional Public Prosecution Office in Göteborg assigned two special prosecutors to serve as duty prosecutors for the event, Chief District Prosecutor Mats Sällström and Deputy Chief District Prosecutor Magnus Bolin.

During the EU summit meeting, accommodation was provided in the Hvitfeld secondary school in Göteborg for young people who travelled to Göteborg. At between 8 and 9 p.m. on June 13, 2001, Magnus Bolin made a decision that a search should be made of these premises. From this decision it can be seen that this search was physical and was to be conducted in "areas open to the public". It was not judged feasible to undertake the search on the same evening. The police resources available were not considered to be adequate.

At 9 a.m. on June 14, 2001, Håkan Jaldung decided that pursuant to Section 23 of the Police Act (1984:387) the area around Hvitfeld secondary school was to cordoned off and visitors within the cordon were to be subjected to a body search. A record of this decision was made in both Operational Order 0614 b, and also in two specific written versions of the decision. The Operational Order described the grounds for the decision as "Disturbances of public order during and in preparation for the search of the premises of Hvitfeld secondary school". There were no circumstances that could give rise to special reasons for believing there to be any risk of crimes involving serious jeopardy to life or health or the extensive destruction of property at Hvitfeld secondary school. For this reason, the legal requirements stipulated in Section 23 of the Police Act for the cordon or the body searches were not fulfilled.

The cordon was first arranged using police officers and fencing and was in place shortly after 11 a.m. on the day in question, June 14, 2001. A large number of the police officers superintending the cordon were gradually replaced by containers that were delivered and positioned. This container arrangement was not completed until the late afternoon. The cordon achieved its intended purpose so that a large number of young people, approximately 650 individuals in the initial stages, were deprived of their liberty in the sense that they were not allowed free exit from the cordoned area. For about two hours during the afternoon, Håkan Jaldung permitted young people to leave the area on condition that they underwent a body search. Before this permission to leave the cordoned area after a body search was withdrawn, 150-200 young people had departed. The deprivation of liberty because of the cordon lasted from approximately 11 a.m. until about 6 p.m. The deprivation of liberty for which Håkan Jaldung was responsible had no basis in law. Neither does Section 23 of the Police Act, if applied correctly, provide any legal grounds for deprivation of liberty.

Just before 6 p.m., after an attempt to break out had been made by young people who were members of the Ya Basta group, Håkan Jaldung decided that police officers were to enter the cordoned area and arrest all those remaining there, about 450 individuals. This decision resulted in an order that he gave to the operative commander, Matts Sjöstrom. At 6.02 p.m. the police stormed the area and all those found within it were detained, the first at 6.10 p.m. At around 3 o’clock in the early morning of June 15, 2001, when only about 150 of those detained had been questioned and the grounds for their detention assessed by a prosecutor, the Senior Duty Investigative Officer decided that the remainder of the detainees were to be released without further action and as soon as possible. Nobody was to be deprived of their liberty for longer than 12 hours as a result of Håkan Jaldung’s detention order. The decision to detain everybody had no basis in law. Detention may only take place when the circumstances laid down in Chapter 24 of the Procedural Code prevail. Each individual case must be appraised. Detention may only take place when an individual fulfils the statutory requirements with regard to the gravity of the crime, the degree of suspicion and any specific grounds for detention. Moreover, Håkan Jaldung lacked the authority to decide on the detention of individuals found within the cordoned area. A police officer may only in cases of urgency detain an individual for whom no detention order has been issued, and there are no legal grounds for making a decision to arrest someone who is not physically present at the place where the decision is made.

By ordering the cordon around the area in which these individuals found themselves and then subsequently their arrest, Håkan Jaldung has, without any basis in law, deprived them of their liberty. In addition, in acting as described, Håkan Jaldung failed in the exercise of his official powers to discharge the obligations incumbent on him as Head of the Operational Command Unit.

This failure to discharge his obligations was intentional and should be judged as grave misuse of his official powers. In this appraisal, special consideration should be taken of the large number of individuals affected by Håkan Jaldung’s unlawful decision and the extensive period for which they were deprived of their liberty. In addition, special attention should be paid to the fact that while deprived of their liberty these individuals were prevented from going about their planned activities, such as participating in demonstrations. This notwithstanding, Håkan Jaldung’s wrongful exercise of his official powers was the outcome of negligence and should therefore be judged as a case of misuse of his official powers to the normal degree.

Statutes invoked: Chapter 4, section 2, paragraph 1 alternatively, and on the second count, Chapter 20, Section 1 paragraph 2 or 1 of the Criminal Code.

Signature

Claes Eklundh