[ad_1]
When the 15-year-old boy, who was in the room from an HVB home, even called the police, he was informed that he could "take the bus". He then drove for more than a week. The police are defending themselves on priorities, but JO now believes that everything is "very remarkable".
The 15-year-old boy was jailed in May 2017 in a HVB home and first went to see his grandmother.
The grandmother managed to persuade him to call the police and tell him that he was wanted and that he wanted to go back to HVB. The police then stated that he could "take a bus".
Stayed with someone in a mood
The next day, the grandmother herself called the police, who did not come to pick him up either.
Just a week later, a woman told her that her son had let the 15-year-old boy live at home with them "in silence". When the woman was informed that the boy needed help, she contacted the police who did not come to pick him up.
When the mother called the police, she received the answer that she was short of resources. The mother then informed the police of the ombudsman who had opened an investigation.
"Usually they want us to shoot them"
Police authorities said in their opinion to the police that it was very common for young people who escaped from treatment centers to call and wish to be shot by the police.
The police officer in charge said that he did not remember the incident, but had assumed that the problem related to the priorities of police resources in the external services.
The police also said they met the 15-year-old boy one night with another person, but the boy had "felt and ran outside".
Evaluate the handrail
Cecilia Renfors, Ombudsman for Justice, now states that it is up to the requesting authority – in this case, the municipality – to determine whether to appeal to the police.
The police check only if the formal requirements for the day-care are met – for example, the client is competent and the claim is supported by law. In principle, a handrail can not be denied in reference to the shortage of resources, strikes the OJ. If the need or aptitude is in doubt, it is appropriate that, according to OJ, the police contact the authority that requested the handrail and request a reassessment.
You also refer to previous decisions stating that the assignments of handrails should be dealt with in priority and carried out "without unnecessary delay".
Very remarkable
Now you find that individual police officers have made judgments if they need a handrail – which the police should not do. This is, according to JO, "very remarkable".
According to OJ, there is no place to allow, for example, a wanted person, in this case a child, to settle in a treatment center. Although in exceptional cases this may be acceptable for an adult, this should never happen without contact with the Social Board.
JO is "very critical" about how the police authority handled the issue. According to OJ, it seems that the fault of the police is due to "a lack of routine and a lack of knowledge of the rules in force".
Free Juridics Newsletter on Legal Affairs and Law – click here
Stefan Lundkvist
[ad_2]
Source link
