Tweet
Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Concerns over the alleged misuse of fingerprinting data just won't go away, since law-enforcement personnel scooped up numerous Jamaicans in raids following the west Kingston incursion in late May.
Another dimension of the so-called misuse has surfaced with at least one human-rights group raising concerns that fingerprints collected by the Ministry of National Security for migration purposes are being illegally retained in its database.
Convener of Families Against State Terrorism, Yvonne McCalla Sobers, told The Gleaner this was the account given to her by an applicant.
"I went to the Ministry of National Security's office on Oxford/Hope Road to pay to have the police do my fingerprints for migration purposes," the applicant wrote to FAST.
"Can you believe that there was a sign which informed the public that the prints will be kept to assist the police in their fight against crime?" the obviously surprised applicant asserted.
Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels says while he was not aware of the sign, this ought not to be.
"You can't give your fingerprint for Reason A and it is used for Reason B," Samuels asserted.
Illegal collection
Samuels, one of the attorneys who have constantly spoken out against the practice of the police routinely storing fingerprints of Jamaicans, contends that retaining prints submitted outside a state of emergency, when specific regulations permit the collection of fingerprints ad hoc, is illegal.
He stressed that the sole purpose of the fingerprint in such a circumstance is to check the applicant's criminal record.
"It should not be used for any other purpose," he argued.
Samuels said the issue brings into sharp focus the need for the destruction of fingerprint data to be properly supervised.
He added that, as an attorney, he has taken for granted that the fingerprints of clients he has represented who have been acquitted are destroyed in accordance with the law.
"I have never followed through or witnessed the destruction process," he admitted.
The police agree that the fingerprint must be destroyed after it is found to be clean.
Steve Brown of the Constabulary Communication Network told a radio station that the fingerprint is taken, then matched to see if there is criminal record.
He said if there is a match it is stated on the certificate, but if there is no match the fingerprint is discarded.
McCalla Sobers also queried whether the prints taken for the voters' list have been placed in the hands of the police.
Samuels is among some criminal attorneys who have been fussing over the practice of the police to retain fingerprints of persons rounded up and fingerprinted routinely.
gary.spaulding@gleanerjm.com
Section Three of the Fingerprint Act stipulates that fingerprints must be destroyed on acquittal.
"Where any person is charged before a Circuit Court, the Traffic Court, Children's Court, Family Court or a Resident Magistrate's Court with any offence, the Court may order that the fingerprints and photograph of such person be taken."
The section adds that, "Where an order is made under this section for the taking of the fingerprints and photograph of any person, such fingerprints and photograph shall be taken by an authorised officer.
"Where the person who is fingerprinted and photographed is acquitted of the charge, the fingerprint form and photograph shall (subject to certain factors) be destroyed within three months from the date of acquittal and the person or his attorney-at-law shall be given prior notice of the date, time and location of such destruction."
Concerns over the alleged misuse of fingerprinting data just won't go away, since law-enforcement personnel scooped up numerous Jamaicans in raids following the west Kingston incursion in late May.
Another dimension of the so-called misuse has surfaced with at least one human-rights group raising concerns that fingerprints collected by the Ministry of National Security for migration purposes are being illegally retained in its database.
Convener of Families Against State Terrorism, Yvonne McCalla Sobers, told The Gleaner this was the account given to her by an applicant.
"I went to the Ministry of National Security's office on Oxford/Hope Road to pay to have the police do my fingerprints for migration purposes," the applicant wrote to FAST.
"Can you believe that there was a sign which informed the public that the prints will be kept to assist the police in their fight against crime?" the obviously surprised applicant asserted.
Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels says while he was not aware of the sign, this ought not to be.
"You can't give your fingerprint for Reason A and it is used for Reason B," Samuels asserted.
Illegal collection
Samuels, one of the attorneys who have constantly spoken out against the practice of the police routinely storing fingerprints of Jamaicans, contends that retaining prints submitted outside a state of emergency, when specific regulations permit the collection of fingerprints ad hoc, is illegal.
He stressed that the sole purpose of the fingerprint in such a circumstance is to check the applicant's criminal record.
"It should not be used for any other purpose," he argued.
Samuels said the issue brings into sharp focus the need for the destruction of fingerprint data to be properly supervised.
He added that, as an attorney, he has taken for granted that the fingerprints of clients he has represented who have been acquitted are destroyed in accordance with the law.
"I have never followed through or witnessed the destruction process," he admitted.
The police agree that the fingerprint must be destroyed after it is found to be clean.
Steve Brown of the Constabulary Communication Network told a radio station that the fingerprint is taken, then matched to see if there is criminal record.
He said if there is a match it is stated on the certificate, but if there is no match the fingerprint is discarded.
McCalla Sobers also queried whether the prints taken for the voters' list have been placed in the hands of the police.
Samuels is among some criminal attorneys who have been fussing over the practice of the police to retain fingerprints of persons rounded up and fingerprinted routinely.
gary.spaulding@gleanerjm.com
Section Three of the Fingerprint Act stipulates that fingerprints must be destroyed on acquittal.
"Where any person is charged before a Circuit Court, the Traffic Court, Children's Court, Family Court or a Resident Magistrate's Court with any offence, the Court may order that the fingerprints and photograph of such person be taken."
The section adds that, "Where an order is made under this section for the taking of the fingerprints and photograph of any person, such fingerprints and photograph shall be taken by an authorised officer.
"Where the person who is fingerprinted and photographed is acquitted of the charge, the fingerprint form and photograph shall (subject to certain factors) be destroyed within three months from the date of acquittal and the person or his attorney-at-law shall be given prior notice of the date, time and location of such destruction."
Comment