{"id":59058,"date":"2026-06-22T10:59:17","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T08:59:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/?post_type=articles&p=59058"},"modified":"2026-06-26T10:59:36","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T08:59:36","slug":"ad-2026-no-29-summary-dismissal-of-a-civilian-administrator-at-the-police-authority-convicted-of-aggravated-drink-driving-and-gross-negligence-in-traffic-declared-invalid","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/article\/ad-2026-no-29-summary-dismissal-of-a-civilian-administrator-at-the-police-authority-convicted-of-aggravated-drink-driving-and-gross-negligence-in-traffic-declared-invalid\/","title":{"rendered":"AD 2026 No. 29 \u2013 Summary dismissal of a civilian administrator at the Police Authority convicted of aggravated drink-driving and gross negligence in traffic declared invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

A civilian administrator at the Police Authority was summarily dismissed after being convicted of aggravated drink-driving and gross negligence in traffic. In connection with the offences, the administrator had also made statements to witnesses and police officers regarding their employment with the authority. The Labour Court declared the summary dismissal invalid and found that there were not even objective grounds for termination, partly because the offences had been committed outside the scope of the employment, were linked to an alcohol dependency of a medical nature, and could reasonably be regarded as a one-off incident.<\/em><\/p>\n

Background:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The case concerned the dismissal of a civilian administrator at the National Operations Department (NOA) of the Swedish Police Authority. The administrator did not hold a police qualification and worked primarily on preparing travel documents for individuals who were to be refused entry or deported from Sweden. His duties did not involve the exercise of public authority and he had no responsibility for staff.<\/p>\n

After the administrator drove a car with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 2.14 per mille, the authority summarily dismissed him. At the time of the incident, the administrator had told a witness who intervened that he worked for the police. He also told the intervening police patrol on several occasions that he worked at NOA, asked whether the officers knew who he was, and stated that his job was probably more important than theirs. The police assistant who filed the report perceived the remarks as an attempt to influence the patrol to discontinue the process of taking the report. The police authority considered that the remarks risked damaging the authority\u2019s reputation and public confidence in the authority, and furthermore posed a risk of undue influence on police officers in the course of their duties. The administrator was subsequently sentenced to two months\u2019 imprisonment for aggravated drink-driving and gross negligence in traffic. The parties agreed that, at the time of the offences, the administrator had a medical condition characterised by alcohol dependence and that he had subsequently undergone rehabilitation, which was successfully completed approximately 1.5 years after the offences.<\/p>\n

The Labour Court\u2019s assessment:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal basis<\/em><\/p>\n

Under Section 18 of the Employment Protection Act, an employee may be dismissed if they have grossly breached their obligations towards their employer. With regard to public sector employees, guidance may be sought in the case law developed through the application of the 1976 Public Sector Employment Act, where the decisive factor was whether the employee, through the offence, had proved to be obviously unsuitable to hold their post. Furthermore, the specific circumstances prevailing within the public sector must be taken into account, which means that criminal acts may, to a greater extent than for other employees, lead to the act being regarded as constituting a gross breach of the employee\u2019s obligations towards the employer. Police officers have a particular responsibility to refrain from committing crimes. In the case of drink-driving offences stemming from alcohol dependence of a medical nature, the decisive factor is, in summary, whether the employee has shown a willingness to participate in rehabilitation measures and whether these can be expected to lead to a lasting result of such a nature that the offence can reasonably be regarded as a one-off occurrence. With regard to civilian employees of the Police Authority who do not have police powers and whose duties do not involve the exercise of public authority, the court has stated that there is no reason to impose the same high standards of integrity as those required of police officers.<\/p>\n

Assessment<\/em><\/p>\n

The Labour Court began by emphasising that there were, in themselves, grounds for taking the offence committed by the administrator seriously. However, the offence had been committed outside the scope of employment, was linked to an alcohol dependency of a medical nature, and could reasonably be regarded as a one-off incident. The administrator was immediately willing to participate in rehabilitation measures, which were successfully completed, and there is no reason to impose the same high standards of integrity on a civilian employee without police powers as on police officers. Whilst the administrator\u2019s statements to the witness and the police patrol were clearly inappropriate, the risk of damage to the Police Authority\u2019s reputation and the risk of undue influence appeared to be limited, particularly in view of the administrator\u2019s condition at the time, which was caused by alcohol-related illness. The Labour Court therefore found, on the basis of an overall assessment, that the administrator had not proved to be obviously unsuitable for employment with the Police Authority and that there were therefore no legal grounds for the summary dismissal.<\/p>\n

Under section 35(1) of the Employment Protection Act, a dismissal shall not be declared invalid if the circumstances would have been sufficient to justify a valid termination of employment. On this point, the Labour Court noted that the criminal offence appeared to be a one-off incident, that the administrator had been rehabilitated from his alcohol dependency, that no criticism had ever been levelled at his work performance, and that the Police Authority had not, prior to the summary dismissal, undertaken any rehabilitative measures or any other less intrusive action. The court therefore found that there were no objective grounds for termination either, and the summary dismissal was declared invalid.<\/p>\n

Setterwalls\u2019 comment:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The judgment illustrates the factors that the Labour Court takes into account when assessing whether criminal conduct outside the scope of official duties may constitute grounds for the summary dismissal or termination of a public-sector employee. The decisive factor in the case was, above all, that the administrator was a civilian employee without police powers; the court therefore applied a lower standard of integrity than that which applies to police officers. The judgment also confirms established case law to the effect that drink-driving offences linked to alcohol dependence of a medical nature do not, as a rule, constitute sufficient grounds for summary dismissal from employment, provided that the employee cooperates with rehabilitation leading to lasting results and that the offence can reasonably be regarded as a one-off incident. A practical conclusion for employers is that even serious criminal offences committed outside working hours do not necessarily constitute sufficient grounds for summarily dismissing an employee, particularly if the offence is linked to a medical condition. In such situations, employers should consider rehabilitation programmes or other less intrusive measures before deciding to dismiss an employee. The absence of such measures was a factor that the court took into account when assessing whether there were valid grounds for summary dismissal.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":57149,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":true,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":""},"article_category":[1043],"class_list":["post-59058","articles","type-articles","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","article_category-employment-and-pension-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles\/59058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articles"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/57149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"article_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article_category?post=59058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}