Edmond Campbell, Senior Staff Reporter
Frank Phipps and Patrick Atkinson - File photos
STRONG RESISTANCE to the Government's six anti-crime bills last week, characterised the first eight presentations from human rights groups and attorneys-at-law, during two sittings of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament, examining the proposed measures.
Legislators were cautioned not to support the controversial bills, which some human rights groups argued would have far-reaching negative implications for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Jamaicans, as set out in the constitution.
The deliberations were intense and both committee members and presenters sought to defend their positions on the proposed laws.
Of the six proposed pieces of legislation, An Act to Make Interim Provision in Relation to the Grant of Bail in Specified Circumstances is the most contentious.
If passed by the houses of parliament, this bill would give the police increased powers to detain a person charged with a serious offence for 60 days.
legislation defendense
Solicitor General and senior legal counsel to the Government, Douglas Leys, defended the raft of legislation that was crafted to deal with the mounting crime problem.
He dismissed criticisms of the two pieces of legislation that would amend entrenched provisions of the Constitution for an interim period of a year.
Leys argued that the bills were not in breach of constitutional provisions. "There seems to be a misguided notion that there is a constitutional right to bail," he said, adding that there was a constitutional right to bail after a "reasonable time".
"The issue as far as I am concerned should be what is a reasonable time? Is it 60 is it 30 days because this is the heart and crux of the constitutional provision, trial and a reasonable time," he argued.
Noted defence attorney and Head of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs, Frank Phipps, QC, said the constitution stipulated that a person detained upon reasonable suspicion of committing a criminal offence and was not released: "Shall be brought before the court without delay".
He said the purpose for appearing before a court was to exercise the right to liberty. "Any parliament that denies the court the right to decide on the person's liberty at that stage would be going very far in the wrong direction."
Criminal defence attorney, Valerie Neita-Robertson, in her submission, warned against what she said was the disturbance of the base of the country's legal system - that of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"It is not a precept that should be disturbed, watered down or undermined in any way," she said.
Drawing on more than a decade of experience in the courts, Neita-Robertson said the bills being proposed by Government would not make a dent on crime.
rehabilitation of inmates
She urged the Government to place more emphasis on the rehabilitation of inmates in the correctional centres. "You cannot be seeking to attack crime at one end and not deal with it at both ends because we are going to reap the world wind."
Patrick Atkinson, Attorney-at-Law, argued that increased persons in custody would be a financial burden on the country. "It would be a logistical challenge to find jail space."
He encouraged the legislature to abandon the current proposed legislative scheme to curb crime.
edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com
———————————————-
Please Box quotations from presenters:
Frank Phipps Q.C. - Head Farquharson Institute of Jamaica
"The person will be kept in custody for 60 days before he has been convicted of an offence and he may be quite innocent. I invite Members of Parliament to give deep and careful consideration to any such provision."
"It offends against the presumption of innocence where a man isn't convicted and he is kept in custody without a court being able to pronounce on his right to liberty."
David Batts - Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights
"This proposal for a mandatory remand period also displays a gross ignorance of the fact that currently, judges, in applying the Bail Act, almost uniformly decline bail at initial hearings for persons charged with murder, gun offences, sexual and other serious offences."
"'The proposed bill does not consider the circumstances of the individual such as age of an accused, his state of health, physical and mental well being, the circumstances of the crime, the circumstances of identification of the accused ... which are normally considered at the bail stage of the trial process."
Valerie Neita-Robertson - Criminal attorney
"The Gun Court is used with alacrity to carry out vendettas. Persons come before the Court on false charges."
Patrick Atkinson - Attorney-at-Law
"Interfering negatively with the fundamental rights will demoralise our nation and will be devastating to the innocent. It will be a weapon in the hands of political enemies and allegations which result in 60-day detentions may abound around election time."
Edmond Campbell
Senior Staff Reporter
STRONG RESISTANCE to the Government's six anti-crime bills last week characterised the first eight presentations from human-rights groups and attorneys-at-law, during two sittings of the joint select committee of Parliament examining the proposed measures.
Legislators were cautioned not to support the controversial bills, which some human-rights groups argued would have far-reaching negative implications for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Jamaicans, as set out in the Constitution.
The deliberations were intense, and both committee members and presenters sought to defend their positions on the proposed laws.
most contentious legislation
Of the six proposed pieces of legislation, An Act to Make Interim Provision in Relation to the Grant of Bail in Specified Circumstances is the most contentious.
If passed by the Houses of Parliament, this bill would give the police increased powers to detain a person charged with a serious offence for 60 days.
Solicitor general and senior legal counsel to the Government, Douglas Leys, defended the raft of legislation that had been crafted to deal with the mounting crime problem.
He dismissed criticisms of the two pieces of legislation that would amend entrenched provisions of the Constitution for an interim period of a year.
Leys argued that the bills were not in breach of constitutional provisions. "There seems to be a misguided notion that there is a constitutional right to bail," he said, adding that there was a constitutional right to bail after a "reasonable time".
"The issue, as far as I am concerned should be, what is a reasonable time? Is it 60, is it 30, days because this is the heart and crux of the constitutional provision, trial and a reasonable time," he argued.
Noted defence attorney and head of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs, Frank Phipps, QC, said the Constitution stipulated that a person detained upon reasonable suspicion of committing a criminal offence and who was not released "shall be brought before the court without delay".
He said the purpose for appearing before a court was to exercise the right to liberty. "Any Parliament that denies the court the right to decide on the person's liberty at that stage would be going very far in the wrong direction."
Criminal defence attorney Valerie Neita-Robertson, in her submission, warned against what she said was the disturbance of the base of the country's legal system - that of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"It is not a precept that should be disturbed, watered down or undermined in any way," she said.
Drawing on more than a decade of experience in the courts, Neita-Robertson said the bills being proposed by Government would not make a dent in crime.
She urged the Government to place more emphasis on the rehabilitation of inmates in the correctional centres. "You cannot be seeking to attack crime at one end and not deal with it at both ends, because we are going to reap the whirlwind."
Patrick Atkinson, attorney-at-law, argued that an increased number of persons in custody would be a financial burden on the country. "It would be a logistical challenge to find jail space."
He encouraged the legislature to abandon the current proposed legislative scheme to curb crime.
edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com
Frank Phipps, QC - head, Farquharson Institute of Jamaica
"The person will be kept in custody for 60 days before he has been convicted of an offence and he may be quite innocent. I invite members of Parliament to give deep and careful consideration to any such provision.
"It offends against the presumption of innocence where a man isn't convicted and he is kept in custody without a court being able to pronounce on his right to liberty."
David Batts - Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights
"This proposal for a mandatory remand period also displays a gross ignorance of the fact that currently, judges, in applying the Bail Act, almost uniformly decline bail at initial hearings for persons charged with murder, gun offences, sexual and other serious offences.
"'The proposed bill does not consider the circumstances of the individual, such as age of an accused, his state of health, physical and mental well-being, the circumstances of the crime, the circumstances of identification of the accused ... which are normally considered at the bail stage of the trial process."
Valerie Neita-Robertson - criminal attorney
"The Gun Court is used with alacrity to carry out vendettas. Persons come before the court on false charges."
Patrick Atkinson - attorney-at-law
"Interfering negatively with the fundamental rights will demoralise our nation and will be devastating to the innocent. It will be a weapon in the hands of political enemies and allegations which result in 60-day detentions may abound around election time."
