Communication and other issues need to be fixed between INDECOM and JCF

INDECOM has reportedly sent 80 reports with recommendations for disciplinary proceedings to the JCF for action and have not heard anything of the matters, even though Section 23 of the INDECOM Act states that they comply with the recommendations in the time and manner proposed, and then tell it of their compliance.

Police must respond to INDECOM’s charge

Jamaica Gleaner

18 Mar 2022

IF HUGH Faulkner is truthful about the police’s approach to the recommendations by the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) for action against police officers accused of misconduct, we can only conclude that the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) has been contemptuous of the law, and that its bosses are not keen to build a culture of accountability in the organisation.

But since that is a posture by the JCF that this newspaper struggles to contemplate, much more accept, it is incumbent on the police chief, Major General Antony Anderson, or his designee, to offer a clear public response to Mr Faulkner’s observations. And if he agrees with the INDECOM commissioner about the negligence, Major General Anderson must offer a plan to fix the problem and a system for the JCF to comply with the law.

Failure to act along these lines will deepen the distrust citizens have for the constabulary and continue to limit its capacity to effectively prevent and detect crime.

INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS

INDECOM’s primary job is to investigate complaints against the conduct of members of the security forces, including with respect to their use-of-force policy. The commission is also empowered to undertake periodic reviews of the disciplinary procedures of the security forces.

Established a dozen years ago, INDECOM was in response to the widely held public view that Jamaica’s police force was not only incompetent, corrupt and unaccountable, but behaved with impunity. The constabulary faced persistent complaints of extrajudicial killings, use of excessive force and, more generally, abuse of power. These accusations have not been eliminated; indeed, they remain high. But they are less, especially with respect to police homicides, than in the pre-INDECOM years. Hardly anyone questions that the commission’s oversight has made a difference.

But more relevant to the matter at hand are the obligations placed on the security forces by Section 23 of the INDECOM Act regarding how they respond to disciplinary recommendations by the commission. The default is that they comply with those recommendations in the time and manner proposed by INDECOM, and then tell it of their compliance.

However, according to Section 23 (2) (b) of the act, if “the responsible officer (of a security force) decides not to comply with the recommendation, he shall give reasons for his decision”.

Last week, Mr Faulkner reported that the police had been slow to act on its recommendations, and when they got around doing – or not doing – something, they did not tell INDECOM. The information had to be dragged out of them, which, of course, was not how Mr Faulkner put it.

For instance, between January 2018 and June last year, INDECOM submitted 80 reports to the JCF, with recommendations for disciplinary proceedings to be considered, or instituted, against 108 police officers. There have been no disciplinary hearings in any of these cases. At least none that INDECOM has been informed about.

What it was told by the JCFs Inspectorate and Professional Standards Oversight Bureau (IPROB), when it asked, was that 36 of the INDECOM reports were still being reviewed, and 38 had been reviewed by IPROB and sent to the JCF’s Administrative Branch for action. With respect to six of the reports, IPROB did not believe that action should be taken against the named officers.

NOT THE FIRST TIME

It is not the first time, as Mr Faulkner recalled, that INDECOM has complained about the JCF’s tardiness in taking and/or reporting on internal actions against cited police officers. In 2017, the commission reported to Parliament that between 2010 and the second half of 2017, 138 officers were reported for disciplinary hearings.

“The 2017 report stated that not a single disciplinary hearing had been held at that time on any of the cases submitted, nor has there been any earlier responses to INDECOM recommendations,” Mr Faulkner said.

He added: “... [T]here’s a continued absence of any meaningful outcomes in progressing the discipline cases which have been identified as breaches of the police disciplinary code; whether that breach is major or minor is immaterial. Both the failure to notify the commission under the INDECOM Act of the progress of the files that have been submitted and the failure to implement and conclude any disciplinary hearing are unsatisfactory.”

We agree with Mr Faulkner. Further, if recalcitrant police officers believe they will be shielded, even if it is indirectly, by the system, there is no incentive for behavioural change. There is also less likelihood for the transformation of the constabulary. Merely talking about change does not mean that it is happening. Neither does investment in technology, of itself, overcome a bad institutional culture.

Indeed, it is a failure to understand this that recently cost Cressida Dick her job as head of the London Metropolitan Police (MET) after the Office of Police Conduct, the equivalent of INDECOM, produced a damaging report on a culture of misogyny, racism and bullying in the MET. Dame Cressida was not doing enough to address the problem, as was seen by London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan, when confronted with the MET’s shortcomings.

In Jamaica, maybe it is Mr Faulkner who got it wrong. Commissioner Anderson should tell us.

For feedback: contact the Editorial Department at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com.