In March 2022, the woman was arrested in her apartment after she attacked her son with a sharp weapon. She is taken to the detention center. It is assessed that she shows clear signs of a psychotic condition. She is admitted to forensic psychiatry with double extra vigilance based on the risk of violence.

Her condition improved and after about two weeks she was taken back to custody. At the time of enrolment, a health examination is carried out, where it is assessed that she has good formal and emotional contact.

My well-being deteriorated

After a little more than a week, her condition deteriorates. The notes from the Prison and Probation Service show that during the night she called the prison staff and pleaded for help.

"She sits with a duvet cover wrapped around her head and says she's panicking," the notes read.

The woman states that she wants the staff to come into the room and calm her down. However, according to the guidelines, the staff do not open the doors at night, but only talk through the hatch.

Found badly injured

One morning, she is found badly injured in her cell and taken to hospital. Among other things, she had injuries to her eyes and ears, which she had inflicted on herself with a radio antenna and a plastic knife.

A senior physician writes in a certificate that it is clear that the woman before the injury signaled that she felt unwell and had a different behavior. He believes that the incarceration and isolation may have contributed to the self-harm.

Seeking damages

Inmates are insured during their detention. The woman has applied for compensation for the injuries because she believes that she did not receive help when she signalled.

The Swedish Social Insurance Agency has rejected the application and believes that the woman's psychotic illness is behind the injuries and not the admission to the detention center. The decision was appealed, but the Administrative Court made the same assessment.

"Nor does the investigation indicate that the prison staff, based on the information available and other circumstances surrounding XXX, should have acted incorrectly or failed in their supervision of her.", writes the Administrative Court in its judgment.