Of police and power

The problem has existed for years but has once more returned to the spotlight due to comments made by attorney Fareed Ali in relation to the treatment of two men who were held in the wake of a gruesome murder.

“When police keep people in custody for seven to 15 days, they should be getting permission from the courts on a daily basis to keep them in custody,” Ali said. He added the law states a suspect can remain in custody for “a reasonable period.” Crucially, it is left to the discretion of the police to determine what is reasonable in the circumstances. However, there is a safeguard in place. Once a lawyer has a problem with the length of time his/her client is in custody, he/she can file a writ in the High Court.

But in practice because people held under these powers often do not have lawyers, the court is often out of reach to the man sitting in the cell.

“A reasonable time in this country has not been defined,” Ali said.

“Some people are in custody for two weeks and because they have no lawyer or the lawyer has filed no writ, the police remain unaccountable to anyone for what they are doing.” But it is not only a question of the length of the detention but also the quality of treatment. Ali gave details of how two of his clients have recently been treated.

“They are not being given access to basic needs such regular food, baths and light,” the lawyer said.

“They are basically in a room within a room ... so they don’t know if it is night or day.” The attorney added, “TT is in dire need of legislation governing how persons brought into police custody ought to be treated by police and the procedural steps to be followed in interrogating them.

The only document that speaks to the manner in which police may handle arrested persons are the Police Standing Orders.” The latter, Ali said, is a defunct set of guidance couched together in a module that refers to arrested people having the right to access to an attorney, but not making it an offence by the police to deny arrested people immediate access to the same legal representation.

One of the hallmarks of any society with a respect for the rule of law is the idea of legal certainty. While the police should be empowered to run investigations as they please and to use as many tactics as possible as they seek to uncover the truth of a given situation, the line is crossed when there is no longer a clear enough limit to the extent of detention. And when the police cross that line, they veer dangerously into the same territory occupied by the criminals they seek to police.

It is bad enough people detained do not have a clear idea as to how long the police can hold them for.

Worse are the reports of poor treatment while supposedly under interrogation.

Everyone is entitled to being assumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not the place for officers to unilaterally devise extrajudicial punishment at the police station or to utilise torture techniques during questioning. Not only is such abuse repugnant, but it imperils the chances of a successful prosecution later at court. That is, assuming the aim is to take the matter to court in the first place.

Too often the public is given cause to question whether people have been detained legitimately or simply as a show of force. The low conviction rate deepens this suspicion.

The murkiness surrounding detention practices simply adds fuel to all of this and undermines the credibility of the Police Service in the long run. This matter has gone on for an unreasonably long time and laws should be drafted to deal with it.