LETTER OF THE DAY - Old rules should be re-examined and revised
Published:Monday | January 3, 2011 | 12:00 AM
The Editor, Sir:
It is important to note that for a country to achieve a desired result in solving crime, law- enforcement officers must operate under proper guidelines that enable them to use investigative tools in keeping with best practices and not infringe on persons' human rights to conduct interviews.
Case in point - law-enforcement officials in Jamaica have been using a set of guidelines known as 'Judges Rules', handed down by the British from as far back as 1912. These guidelines set out how an officer should conduct interviews with suspects in relation to confession or questioning and the suspect's right to remain silent being inherent.
It is my view that a suspect should be protected from saying anything that is incriminating without the presence of his attorney. Hence, the admissibility or inadmissibility of a confession must depend on the suspect being aware of his right to remain silent and that it was voluntary, without threat, fear or favour.
However, where a suspect is being questioned in relation to a crime, Judges Rules make provision for him not to answer any question, not even the basics such as name and address, if he so desires. So, a suspect in a murder case when asked, "Where were you on a particular date and time?" can refuse to answer. Ironically, if the suspect is charged, at the date of the trial, this same suspect can give unsworn evidence from the dock stating where he or she was or using an alibi that could not be verified by a law-enforcement officer in the course of the investigation. Evidence from the dock cannot be challenged by the prosecution.
It should be noted that the British have revised their guidelines as they relate to the questioning of suspects. In the British jurisdiction, suspects can no longer use an alibi as a defence, if they were given an opportunity to do so initially and did not.
Policymakers must understand that positive results cannot be yielded in any country where law-enforcement officials carry out investigations and where a suspect can remain silent throughout. We continue to admire the results of investigation in these First-World countries and the CSI shows on television but pay little attention to their resources and enabling legislation. Businesses that are currently successful could not be operating with 1912 technology when the world has been completely revolutionised. Old rules must be re-examined and revised for increased efficiencies and effectiveness. So it is not the length of time that the suspect is in custody but the quality of investigative tools that will yield the best result.
I am, etc.,
BYRON YATES