Advertisement

SOE detentions unlawful, court rules

A report from Radio Jamaica's Dionne Jackson Miller
 
A ruling handed down by the Supreme Court on Friday may have implications for how the government detains people under future States of Public Emergency.
 
Justice Bertram Morrison ruled that the detention of five men under states of emergency was unlawful and unconstitutional. 
 
Everton Douglas had been detained for 177 days, Nicholas Heath for 361, Courtney Hall for 395 days, Courtney Thompson was in custody for 365 days and Gavin Noble for 431 days.
 
They had asked the court to declare their detentions unconstitutional.
 
Justice Morrison said the detention times were remarkable given that none of the men had been charged with any offence.
 
He ruled that their rights and the Constitution itself had been breached by what he referred to as a system of executive detention, which was in conflict with the separation of powers.
 
In his written judgment, he said the Emergency Powers Regulations gave unfettered discretion to the police or the Minister to put people in jail for criminal offences. This is normally the job of a judge, he said, noting it breaches the rule of law as well as the doctrine of separation of powers which says the executive cannot interfere with the job of a judge. 
 
Justice Morrison in court Friday said although he would not deal with the issue of compensation, the men should go back to court. He argued that it cannot be that in a free and democratic society people can be taken into custody, held for long periods of time, and released without compensation.
 
John Clarke, one of the lawyers who represented the detainees, pointed out that the matter of compensation was not just related to the five men, but to all persons who had been detained under the States of Public Emergency. 
 
"The Emergency Powers Act itself indicates that if someone is affected by the Act, they should be compensated. So we're hoping that the government, in full adherence to the judgment, will seek to ultimately enter discussions about how the settlement will be done," he said. 
 
"What I'm hoping that they'll do moving forward is to pass an Act, which is consistent with the constitution and which bear in mind (sic) that persons have certain rights. And to be clear, all of the good intentions that the government have in fighting crime must be applauded and the court itself said it was sympathetic to those good intentions, but in seeking to fight crime, it must also adhere to the constitution," Mr. Clarke added.   


comments powered by Disqus
Most Popular
Major fraud uncovered at Courts branch in...