AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL has taken note of the case of Clinton Bernard, incapacitated by a police bullet, awarded $2.2 million by the Supreme Court, but now denied any compensation because the award has been overturned on appeal.
The technicality on which the award was reversed was based on the argument that although a constable shot Bernard unlawfully he was not acting in the lawful execution of his duty, such action falling "outside the class of acts authorised by Section 13 on the Constabulary Force Act", and thus the state could not be held liable.
The Appeal judges however did call on the Government to institute reform to assist the many innocent victims of "barbarous conduct of some agents of the state"; and in the instant case to compensate the victim.
Although the Appeal Court ruling was handed down some three weeks ago there has been no indication yet that the Government will respond. The need is urgent. As the Sunday Gleaner reported two weeks ago, Bernard was shot in the head, now suffers from epileptic seizures; and says he will never be able to work again.
The Amnesty reaction, in terms of access to international remedy, is echoed in today's Letter of the Day, on the page opposite, from Caribbean Justice in England. In essence there is reference to Jamaica's withdrawal from the Protocol of the United Nations Human Rights Committee whereby individuals could appeal for redress in cases of abuse of rights.
Mr. Bernard's case cries out for such remedy. It is clear that even in overturning the Supreme Court award the Appeal judges were sensitive to the shackles of legislation that fell short of humane considerations.
They went further in calling on the government to make reasonable ex gratia payment to the victim. The offending constable was fired from the police force in March 1990, a month after he shot Mr. Bernard at a telephone booth demanding by force his turn to use the phone. He has since left the island, while Mr. Bernard suffers in desperation.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
