JO:s ämbetsberättelse 2006/07

2006/07:JO1 BILAGA 10
630
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal
Christopher Gillberg lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Court of
Appeal and moved that the charge should be dismissed. The Supreme Court
decided on April 25, 2006, not to issue a review permit. The judgment of the
Court of Appeal therefore gained legal force.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other issues
In addition to the release of the material which was the subject of this preliminary
investigation, these two cases submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen
also involved a number of other issues relating to the “Gothenburg
Study”.
One of the letters with supplementary material submitted by L. E. to the
Parliamentary Ombudsman in September 2003 contained another complaint
about the way in which the same department at Gothenburg University – the
Department for Women’s and Children’s Health – had dealt with another case
concerning the release of public documents. Its contents included the following.
In a letter dated July 10, 2003, followed by a reminder on August 19,
2003, L. E. requested access to public documents dealing with the ongoing
appraisal of the research ethics of the “Gothenburg study”. Two months after
his request had been submitted, he had still received no reply. On the other
hand, as a result of his request, the department had written to the Chief Executive
of the City of Uppsala. In his work as a paediatric physician for the
City of Uppsala, L. E. is attached to the Research and Knowledge Centre of
the Social Services. The university’s letter questioned his right to use his
office address in his letterhead and an official city envelope. The letter also
contained the allegation that he was conducting a “mass-media campaign” in
a “markedly aggressive manner” and it claimed that it was “common knowledge”
that he was “wont to complain about delays to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen”.
Another letter on this subject was sent to various senior officials
employed by the City of Uppsala. L. E. claims that the department’s contacts
with the City of Uppsala had no relevance to the question of whether the
documents should be released or not but that the department was attempting
to blacken his name with his employers because he was taking advantage of
his constitutional right to provide information and because he had requested
access to public documents.
As can be seen from the account above of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s
enquiry into the cases, the Vice-Chancellor of Gothenburg University was
asked to investigate and submit a statement on what had been said in the letters
in question. In his response, dated November 4, 2003, his statements on
this issue were as follows.
On July 10, 2003, L. E. applied to the Department for Women’s and Children’s
Health to be allowed access to public documents concerning the appraisal
of research ethics. The address to which he sent this request was Kungs-