JFJ raises rights alarm over arrest of men at Cooper’s Pen demolition

Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) wants the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) to indicate why its members were present as part of what appears to have been a private demolition exercise.

The lobby made the demand yesterday, citing human rights concerns in the wake of the destruction of houses in Coopers Pen, Trelawny, and the detention of several men from the community by the police before the incident.

With little information in the public domain on the matter, JFJ also called for the JCF to clarify whether the detention of the men formed part of the demolition operation or was connected to a separate and independent police operation.

The human rights organisation also wants the JCF to tell the country the legal basis on which the men were fingerprinted and photographed.

JFJ is one of the latest groups to raise concern about Monday’s demolition of a section of the informal settlement, which left families displaced and others uncertain about whether their houses would be next.

In a news release under the signature of its executive director, Mikel Jackson, JFJ has also urged the relevant authorities to ensure that any future exercises of this nature, whether court-sanctioned demolitions or law-enforcement operations, are conducted with due regard for the dignity, safety, and constitutional rights of affected residents, including adequate advance notice wherever legally required.

RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE

The men who were detained by the police were reportedly taken to the Falmouth Police Station, held for approximately 13 hours, fingerprinted, photographed, and allegedly had their phones taken before being released without charge.

Police on the scene reportedly declined to answer questions about the reasons for the detentions, and residents said they were told only that lawmen were “searching for firearms”.

JFJ argued that detention, fingerprinting, and the seizure of personal property such as phones are significant interferences with constitutional rights to freedom of the person, movement, liberty, and privacy.

The human rights group said that, where such measures are taken, the State bears the burden of demonstrating that they were lawful, necessary, and proportionate.

“The mere presence of police at a demolition exercise does not, on its own, justify the detention and processing of residents as though they were criminal suspects,” JFJ added.

According to JFJ, the Finger Prints Act sets clear boundaries on when a person’s fingerprints and photograph may lawfully be taken.

“Absent a court order made after a person is formally charged, the Act permits fingerprinting only where the person consents, after being informed of the right to refuse, or, in the absence of consent, only where an officer not below the rank of superintendent gives written authorisation based on reasonable grounds to suspect the person’s involvement in a specified serious offence, such as one under the Firearms or Dangerous Drugs Acts, or where the person has given a false identity,” the human rights group explained.

It warned that nothing in the Act permits the fingerprinting of persons simply as part of a fishing exercise.

editorial@gleanerjm.com