Trevor Monroe
AFTER A long and heated debate on Thursday, members of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament examining the proposed Offensive Weapons (Prohibition) Act hammered out a consensus on the controversial Bill.
They agreed that the burden of proof should rest on the State, rather than the individual, in cases where a person is found with an article which could be deemed by the police as an offensive weapon.
The issue was the major sticking point in the debate which lasted for almost two hours.
Under the Bill, there are two definitions of offensive weapons. The first deals with articles made or adapted to be used for causing injury. The second is a list of knives and other implements, including the rambo, switchblade and the ratchet knives.
The concerns of the members centred on the first definition which would cover all articles once they could be used as weapons. A number of members including Member of Parliament Delroy Chuck, Senators Alfred Rattary, Anthony Johnson and Professor Trevor Munroe, led an assault on the definition, arguing that it provided a loophole for people to be prosecuted for merely possessing an article, once the police deem that such an article could be used to injure someone.
"You can't put the population at risk for every single thing that someone may have," an adamant Senator Rattary argued.
Alternative wording
In a fiery exchange with committee chair and Minister of National Security and Justice, K.D. Knight, the Senator suggested that the Bill unfairly placed the onus on individuals to prove that they have good reason for having the article and have no intention to use it to harm others. His position was supported by Senator Munroe who noted that the Bill should expressly place the burden on the state to prove that a person who has an article intends to use it to injure another person.
Mr. Knight initially argued that the Bill did not put the burden of proof on the individual but on the state. However, following the insistence of members that this was not clear, he offered alternative wording which essentially placed the obligation on the state. This found support from all the members.
The meeting was adjourned indefinitely. At its next sitting, the chairman will present the reworded Bill for the committee to consider. A number of organisations, including the Jamaican Bar Association, have also been given an additional two weeks to comment on the proposed legislation.
The Bill, which was tabled last year, seeks to make it illegal for people to carry offensive weapons, particularly knives, in public places. However, it has been widely criticised by people who have argued that it would, among other things, open up the possibility for police abuse.
