Tweet
<H1 class=news-story-header>No rush to cut back on police powers - Bunting
Published: Thursday | January 19, 2012 5 Comments
Daraine Luton, Senior Staff Reporter DESPITE last year voting against the renewal of an act that granted police additional powers in the aftermath of the 2010 state of emergency, National Security Minister Peter Bunting has suggested he would not be moving post-haste to have the legislation repealed.
The Opposition in the last Parliament had voted against the renewal of the Constabulary Force (Interim Provisions for Arrest and Detention) Act, 2010, which was implemented as part of the then Government anti-crime plan.
"Of course, we will look at that," Bunting said when reminded of his contribution to a debate in Parliament when he said the act should not be renewed as it was being used to harass citizens.
"The issue, really, is not so much the provisions in that act, but how it is being used," Bunting told The Gleaner on Tuesday. "It provided for detention for up to 72 hours and, in practice, persons were being detained for much longer than that. So, it's really the operations that we will look on, rather than the act itself."
Arbitrary powers
In the last Parliament, Bunting, in opposing the renewal of the act, said: "This Constabulary Force (Interim Provisions for Arrest and Detention) Act seriously encroaches on one of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, that is the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention. Therefore, any contemplation of an extension of this law must be based on sound arguments supported by empirical analysis. In our discussions with the Government and the Police High Command, we have made this very clear."
Bunting also read out statistics, which he said were provided by the police, suggesting that persons were being kept longer than 72 hours before being charged and that, in one case, an individual was detained for 42 days before being charged.
"What this confirms is that the extension of the period of detention without charge, from 24 to 72 hours, was really an attempt to legitimise arbitrariness in the whole process of arrest and detention," Bunting said.
During the debate on the renewal last year, he argued that young men of poor backgrounds were being subjected to unfair treatment by the police because the lawmen were clothed with the legislation. He also presented statistics which showed that convictions in the courts since the act had come into force did not increase.
"What we do know both from our experience with the Suppression of Crimes Act and intuitively is that these powers used arbitrarily will cause hostility among lower income young men, the primary target group of these pieces of legislation," Bunting said in the debate.
Rights being abused
Arlene Harrison Henry, the chairperson for Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights, told The Gleaner yesterday that the lobby continues to hold the position that the act allows for the abuse of people's constitutional rights.
Harrison Henry argued that the police did not produce any statistics to justify the continued life of that act.
"It should not have been renewed and we would continue to want it to be repealed," she said.
"But at the same time, we need persons who break the law to be properly investigated and put before a court of law. The detention allows a level of arbitrariness and violation of rights," she added.
In the meantime, the national security minister said he was going to be active on the legislative front in securing the passage of several anti-crime bills.
"Our priority now is to get the anti-gang legislation tabled in Parliament and passed," he told The Gleaner.
"We want to look at the Evidence Act, the DNA legislation. We have a number of important pieces of legislation, but the principal one that I am working on now, to get to Parliament, is the anti-gang legislation," he said.
daraine.luton@gleanerjm.com
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...ead/lead2.html
</H1>
Published: Thursday | January 19, 2012 5 Comments
Daraine Luton, Senior Staff Reporter DESPITE last year voting against the renewal of an act that granted police additional powers in the aftermath of the 2010 state of emergency, National Security Minister Peter Bunting has suggested he would not be moving post-haste to have the legislation repealed.
The Opposition in the last Parliament had voted against the renewal of the Constabulary Force (Interim Provisions for Arrest and Detention) Act, 2010, which was implemented as part of the then Government anti-crime plan.
"Of course, we will look at that," Bunting said when reminded of his contribution to a debate in Parliament when he said the act should not be renewed as it was being used to harass citizens.
"The issue, really, is not so much the provisions in that act, but how it is being used," Bunting told The Gleaner on Tuesday. "It provided for detention for up to 72 hours and, in practice, persons were being detained for much longer than that. So, it's really the operations that we will look on, rather than the act itself."
Arbitrary powers
In the last Parliament, Bunting, in opposing the renewal of the act, said: "This Constabulary Force (Interim Provisions for Arrest and Detention) Act seriously encroaches on one of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, that is the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention. Therefore, any contemplation of an extension of this law must be based on sound arguments supported by empirical analysis. In our discussions with the Government and the Police High Command, we have made this very clear."
Bunting also read out statistics, which he said were provided by the police, suggesting that persons were being kept longer than 72 hours before being charged and that, in one case, an individual was detained for 42 days before being charged.
"What this confirms is that the extension of the period of detention without charge, from 24 to 72 hours, was really an attempt to legitimise arbitrariness in the whole process of arrest and detention," Bunting said.
During the debate on the renewal last year, he argued that young men of poor backgrounds were being subjected to unfair treatment by the police because the lawmen were clothed with the legislation. He also presented statistics which showed that convictions in the courts since the act had come into force did not increase.
"What we do know both from our experience with the Suppression of Crimes Act and intuitively is that these powers used arbitrarily will cause hostility among lower income young men, the primary target group of these pieces of legislation," Bunting said in the debate.
Rights being abused
Arlene Harrison Henry, the chairperson for Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights, told The Gleaner yesterday that the lobby continues to hold the position that the act allows for the abuse of people's constitutional rights.
Harrison Henry argued that the police did not produce any statistics to justify the continued life of that act.
"It should not have been renewed and we would continue to want it to be repealed," she said.
"But at the same time, we need persons who break the law to be properly investigated and put before a court of law. The detention allows a level of arbitrariness and violation of rights," she added.
In the meantime, the national security minister said he was going to be active on the legislative front in securing the passage of several anti-crime bills.
"Our priority now is to get the anti-gang legislation tabled in Parliament and passed," he told The Gleaner.
"We want to look at the Evidence Act, the DNA legislation. We have a number of important pieces of legislation, but the principal one that I am working on now, to get to Parliament, is the anti-gang legislation," he said.
daraine.luton@gleanerjm.com
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...ead/lead2.html
</H1>
Comment