Defence lawyers still concerned over laptop barriers

Defence attorneys have renewed complaints about access to correctional facilities after notices posted by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) appeared to limit the use of electronic devices to weekdays, a move lawyers say undermines their ability to consult meaningfully with incarcerated clients.

The issue was raised by Tamika Harris, president of the Advocates’ Association, who said that despite ongoing dialogue with Commissioner of Corrections Brigadier Radgh Mason, lawyers continue to encounter practical barriers when attempting to visit clients with laptops and tablets, particularly on weekends.

Harris said attorneys were led to believe that the long-standing dispute had been resolved following meetings with the commissioner, who had indicated recently during his appearance at the Supreme Court that lawyers were permitted to enter correctional facilities with approved electronic devices.

However, she said confusion persists on the ground, with frontline staff often directing attorneys to seek clearance from specific officers, who may be unavailable. As a result, the association had requested that clear notices be posted at facility entrances to inform staff of lawyers’ rights.

While notices were eventually posted, they state Monday to Friday only, Harris said.

“The difficulty with that is, during the week, Monday to Friday, counsel is normally in the courtroom or in the halls of the court conducting trials, case management hearings, and trial readiness hearings. We are hardly available to visit our clients and to take instructions on a weekday.

“It therefore means the time we are available is on weekends. So, if we are not able to take our devices on the weekend, it absolutely makes no sense. And I am sure he is aware of that, because that was one of the reasons we were in dialogue with him, so that we could negotiate Sunday visits,” she said.

“It makes no sense to tell them that they can’t do something in a time period when they are unavailable,” Harris stressed.

Harris noted that the Sunday visit was rejected due to staff availability.

POSITION UNCHANGED

When contacted by The Gleaner, Mason maintained that lawyers have not been barred from entering correctional facilities with electronic devices, and insisted that his position remains unchanged.

“My statement is consistent with what would have been made at the Supreme Court,” he said.

“There is no hindrance to the legal advisers of persons in our care,” Mason said. “The Corrections Act is clear, the instructions have been provided. Members of the profession are to proceed with their representation.”

Pressed on whether lawyers are permitted to enter facilities with devices on Saturdays, despite the notices referencing weekdays only, Mason said attorneys could still make arrangements through the relevant superintendent.

However, when told that lawyers were of the impression that Saturday would have been included, he declined to elaborate further, stating: “I have nothing more to say about it. It has been said, it has been written.”

The controversy first surfaced publicly during proceedings in the anti-gang trial involving alleged Clansman Gang leader Tesha Miller and 25 co-accused, when defence attorney John Clarke complained that lawyers were being prevented from taking electronic devices into correctional facilities, hampering their ability to review disclosure material with clients.

NO HINDRANCE

At the time, Mason addressed the Home Circuit Court at the invitation of Justice Dale Palmer, insisting that the DCS had issued clear directives following consultations with the Jamaican Bar Association and the Office of the Chief Justice.

“The correspondence made it very clear that all superintendents were given clear directives that it is the constitutional right of inmates to receive legal counsel, and that there should be no fettering or hindrance,” Mason told the court.

He also said systems were put in place to allow attorneys to communicate directly with facility superintendents by telephone and email, noting that, under the Corrections Act, an assistant superintendent is the lowest-ranked officer authorised to deal with such matters.

Mason said checks of entry registers and CCTV footage did not support claims that lawyers were being denied entry with electronic devices, and noted that no formal complaints had been lodged with his office.

He had also agreed to have notices posted at the facilities to facilitate the entry of lawyers with devices.

Despite those assurances, defence attorneys maintain that inconsistent implementation at correctional facilities continues to impede access, particularly on weekends, and are calling for clearer, uniform directives to be communicated to frontline staff.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com