The Swedish Police Authority decided to revoke a person's appointment as a public security guard by reference to his failure to fulfil the requirement of suitability. The decision stated that the public security guard's brother was part of a criminal network and that there was a risk of influence and a conflict of loyalty with the authority's mission.
The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the suitability assessment shall pertain to the public security guard himself or herself. However, this does not preclude also taking into account circumstances relating to other persons such as relatives and other persons in the public security guard’s environment. The mere fact that such a person has a criminal record or is part of a criminal network, however, cannot form the basis for the conclusion that the public security guard is not suitable for the assignment. In order for this to be the case, there must be specific circumstances which suggest that the connection of the public security guard to the person in question renders the suitability of the public security guard questionable.
The specific circumstances adduced by the Swedish Police Authority as grounds for revocation of the public security guard’s appointment was that his brother is part of a criminal network, that the brothers were previously registered at the same address and continued to reside in the same city, and that the brothers have contact with one another.
However, it had not been asserted that the public security guard had socialised with his brother in criminal environments or other unsuitable contexts. Nor had it been asserted that there had been any attempt to influence or that any specific conflict of loyalty had emerged, much less that the public security guard should have allowed himself to be influenced or to act disloyally in relation to his assignment as a public security guard.
The Supreme Administrative Court therefore granted the public security guard’s appeal.