Lloyd WilliamsThis is the second and final segment of a two-part series looking at Police Complaints Authorities in Jamaica and England. The first appeared on Monday.
THE PPCA is hardly a well-known organisation in Jamaica. Added to that, its very name -- "Police Public Complaints Authority" -- arouses suspicion in the eyes of many members of the public who tend to see it -- as unfairly as some members of the public in England and Wales would see the Police Complaints Authority there -- as a pro-police unit, ever committed to putting the police in a favourable light.
If Jamaica is serious about investing and endowing its PPCA with the credibility it will need to function efficiently, effectively and as an institution known and trusted by the public for its integrity, then it must start by being transparent and open.
What happens here is that whenever the police are involved in a violent incident in a community, the Constabulary Communication Network invariably announces that the Police High Command has ordered a "high-level investigation". Only if the investigation results in the Director of Public Prosecutions ordering criminal charges against the police, and usually in high-profile cases, is the public likely to hear the result of the investigation.
The investigation is clothed in secrecy from start to finish with the public not knowing whether the specific allegations were found to have merit or were deemed frivolous; and whether any internal disciplinary measure was taken against the accused policemen.
So public confidence in the PPCA is undermined further, and the high-level investigation is seen as just another cover-up, with the public trusting the PPCA even less.
But we have other problems. In this country the police shoot dead an average of 150 people a year. And the number used to be much higher. The law stipulates that there should be Coroner's inquests into every one of these fatal shootings in cases where criminal charges are not preferred. The delays in holding these inquests are simply appalling.
In relatively few cases of fatal shooting by the police are Coroner's inquests ever held.
The practice in Jamaica is that the Resident Magistrate in each of the 12 parishes and one in the Corporate Area of Kingston and St. Andrew, is the Coroner. But the average Resident Magistrate is so saddled with his or her daily caseload of criminal or civil cases that he or she has to try each day, that Coroner's inquests end up on the back burners -- way, way back. Unless serious and sustained pressure is brought to bear in a particular case, the Coroner's inquests into violent or mysterious deaths, rarely take place.
So the number of deaths throughout Jamaica that should be the focus of Coroner's inquests pile up while witnesses move away, die, or lose interest, crucial files get lost and accused police offenders move on or out of the jurisdiction.
It is the duty of the Superintendent of a Police Division -- a parish -- to report to the Resident Magistrate/ Coroner all violent deaths for which nobody is charged so the Coroner can hold an inquest into them. But how often does this ever happen? And which Coroner/Resident Magistrate insists on the Superintendent of Police for a parish doing his duty so that Coroner's inquests can be initiated?
So, nothing happens and as usual, poor people continue to be victims of injustice at the hands of the state.
Even when Coroner's inquests actually take place in high-profile cases -- like the one involving the Tivoli Gardens shootings, for example -- it is unusual to get them going before a year or two.
And there is another aspect to selecting jurors for Coroner's inquests. The list is made up by the police. And which policeman is going to put on a list, potential jurors who have expressed the belief that the civil rights of all Jamaicans, be they residents of the inner cities or of the skyline drives, must be respected by members of the security forces?
Let's not kid ourselves. We all know how vulnerable juries can be. Ask Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe.
The last drug case trial by jury in this country was that some years ago, involving the seizure of hundreds of pounds of cocaine at a clandestine airstrip at Flower Hill near to Montego Bay.
The lesson learnt then was that a lone Resident Magistrate was more likely to give justice where justice is due, than jurors susceptible to irresistible blandishments.
Prime Minister Patterson says the Braeton case is to go to the St. Catherine Coroner's Court. So be it.
But after the Braeton inquest is over and done with, there will be just one other little matter to be attended to. It will be time for the nation to take a hard look at "Restorative Justice".
In a paper prepared for the PCA, Josephine Dobry, a member of the authority, describes it thus: "Restorative Justice, in simple terms, is to do with restoration, repairing the harm done by a criminal act. Restoration of the victim so that he or she can accept what has happened and move on from that experience.
Restoration of the offender to a law-abiding society having seen and understood the damage caused, together with his or her responsibility for that damage. Restoration also to the community for the damage caused to its members.
"If traditional justice is about establishing blame and delivering justice punishment, Restorative Justice is about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions and finding their own solutions to repairing the damage that has been caused".
According to the PCA, "The restorative justice process normally involves a coming together of all those affected by an incident. A complainant and relevant family or friends might meet with the officer subject of the complaint together with relevant colleagues. All concerned would have a chance to air their views, understand how their actions have affected others and repair and move on from the damage that has been caused."
With its roots in local community solutions to crime and normally associated with bringing victims and offenders together, restorative justice offers a constructive and educational way of resolving complaints and an alternative to the current formal, legalistic, lengthy and punishment-based complaints process.
"Used appropriately, we believe that the restorative process offers a fair, open and immediate way of resolving many complaints. It can be a painful process, but the hope is that officers will, where necessary, change their attitudes and behaviour as a result of a meeting.
"Equally, complainants should gain a better understanding of police pressures and procedures, while receiving the one thing that so many are looking for -- a simple apology face to face".
Lloyd Williams is Senior Associate Editor at The Gleaner.
