By Omar Anderson, Gleaner WriterTHE JOINT Select Committee examining the Bill to amend the Fingerprints Act yesterday wrapped up its deliberations, although consensus was not reached on a sticking clause in the document.
Opposition members argued over whether the police should have the right to fingerprint or photograph a suspect without a court order. The decision is being left up to the Parliament which should soon receive a report from the committee.
Arthur Williams, Opposition member, argued that Section 4 (4) of the Bill should be amended to give the right to fingerprint or photograph suspects to a Resident Magistrate. The controversial section notes in part that: "The fingerprints and photograph of a person taken into custody may be taken without his consent and without a court order, on the written authorisation of an authorised officer..."
Mr. Williams was responding to Government member John Junor who, in defence of the section, argued that the court system was already clogged. He said soliciting from a Resident Magistrate the periodic fingerprinting or photographing of a suspect would be a "significant administrative hindrance."
UNCONVINCING ARGUMENT
Mr. Williams fired back, charging that Mr. Junor's argument was not convincing. He suggested that a system be implemented to make it easy for the police to bring evidence before a magistrate as to why the consent of suspects should not be sought before they are fingerprinted or photograph.
"We have a new concept of duty attorney," Mr. Williams remarked. "We may need to consider the concept of a duty magistrate to deal with matters of this nature, so that it doesn't have to be burdensome on the police to obtain whatever authority they need."
Committee chairman Dr. Peter Phillips, who is also National Security Minister, cut short the haggling over the issue, suggesting that a report on the deliberations be tabled in Parliament. There would be no debate on the matter until the regulations associated with the Bill are drafted and approved by the same committee.
POWER NOT THE ANSWER
Delroy Chuck, another Opposition member, said the relevant section of the Bill should be amended as Jamaica's history over the last 30 years had demonstrated that more police powers have not benefited law enforcement, and citizens have co-operated less.
"We must not exclude some judicial authority because it has been and should continue to be the bulwark between the rights and freedom of citizens and the powers of the state that would want to interfere with those rights and freedoms," he stated.
In defending the offending clause, Dr. Phillips questioned what made Jamaica different from other jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, which all have similar fingerprinting and photographing statutes as Section 4 (4).
He said while he was aware of possible abuses that may arise in allowing police to fingerprint and photograph suspects without a court order, Parliament was obligated to, among other things, protect law-abiding citizens and create a lawful and peaceful society.
"If we want the measure of lawful behaviour that is typical of those societies, we are going to need to enable those charged with securing law and order, with the same powers," Dr. Phillips said.
