THE EDITOR, Sir:I REFER to your editorial of Thursday, July 22, 2004 in which you assert that 'existing laws on the books in Jamaica allow for mandatory searches and attorneys must comply with the rules with good grace'. The assertion regarding mandatory searches is wrong.
The Correctional Institution (Adult Correctional Centre) Rules, 1991 govern the activities at the Horizon Remand Centre (although I have, so far, not found any evidence that 'Horizon' has been gazetted as an adult correctional centre, as required by section 6 of the Corrections Act).
Be that as it may, Regulation 82 is not drafted in mandatory terms, and gives the 'gate keeper' of the correctional institution a discretion. In fact, the Regulation nowhere uses the word 'search'. The Legislature in its wisdom used the word 'examine' and provides that the gate keeper 'may examine any article, vehicle or person'.
It is not my intention to reduce the current argument to one of semantics, but I believe that it will be conceded that it is possible to examine a person without searching. An examination of a person, in some instances, may involve no more than questions and answers. If after such an examination there is a reasonable basis for a search, then a search may be demanded and carried out. In fact, the gate keeper is also empowered, if necessary, to detain such person, including an attorney, pending the instructions of the superintendent.
As to the allegation that an attorney smuggled contraband into the institution, has any member of the Corrections' Staff been charged with negligence, breach of duty or aiding and abetting the commission of a 'crime'?
Keep in mind, that Regulation 165, while allowing a legal adviser to see an inmate, that conference must be done in the sight, but not in the hearing of the member of staff.
The member of staff posted to have sight of the Attorney as he conferred with the inmate, apparently fell asleep.
I am, etc.,
PATRICK BAILEY
Kingston
