A section of Justice Paul Harrison’s report on the Armadale tragedy.

Armadale

The Armadale Juvenile Correctional Centre (“Armadale”) situated at Alexandria in the parish of St. Ann, was declared to be a Juvenile Correctional Centre on 25th September 1991 by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of the Correctional Institutions (Declaration) (Juvenile Correctional Centres) order, 1991, under the authority of section 47 of Corrections Act.

Where a child is found guilty of any offense before a Children’s Court, that court may make an order sending the child to a juvenile correctional centre — section 76 (1)(f) of the Child Care and Protection Act (’the CC&P Act”). A “child” is defined in the latter Act as”... a person under the age of eighteen years.”

The objects of the said Act as stated in section 3 are, inter alia — “(a) to promote the best interests, safety and well-being of children;...”

The “best interest of the child is the paramount consideration,” thereby entitling the child to protection from abuse, neglect, harm, or the threat of harm, recognising that a family is the preferred environment and the protection of the children rests primarily with the parents, with support services where applicable, and taking into account the views of the child in certain circumstances, section 2(3) of the Act.

Armadale — the housing of the child detainees

Armadale, originally a great house, was prior to 1991, a place of safety. Up to 2006, all the girls were housed in a twostorey building to the south of the Armadale compound, called the “Upstairs Dorm”. As a result of a fire started by the girls, some of them were moved, in November 2006, to a building, to northern end of the compound, called thereafter the Cottage Dorm. This building was previously occupied as the residence of the Assistant Superintendent at Armadale. The Cottage Dorm consisted of three rooms with beds to accommodate an additional thirty (30) girls. The building was renovated and rededicated as a dormitory on the 20th November 2006. (See Exhibit no 8). There were therefore two (2) dormitories, the newly created Cottage dormitory with thirty (30) girls and the rest of the girls approximately thirty-five (35), were left in the Upstairs dormitory.

The maximum capacity of Armadale was then accepted to be forty-five (45) girls, however, approximately 65 girls were then in residence. The Department of Correctional Services Annual report for 2007 reveals that on 1st January 2007 the total population at Armadale was sixty-five (65) girls — (see Table 25 on page 35 Exhibit 34).

The Upstairs dormitory had no bathroom facilities. Mrs June Spence-Jarrett, Commissioner of Corrections, acting since December 2008 and appointed August 2009, said in evidence, of the Upstairs dormitory in 2007,

“I aware Upstairs dorm girls had no bathroom facilities after locked at nights — continued awhile, so we put in facilities ... first became aware in May 2007.”

Mr Neilson Anderson , the Property Manager for the Correctional Department had so advised her, then Deputy Commissioner, by memorandum dated 26th May 2007 (See Exhibit 13).

Mr Anderson visited Armadale on 26th May 2007 along with an engineer Mr Williams, Mr Ramdatt, the Property Manager of the Ministry of National Security and Mr, Clarke, the Building Engineer at the National Works Agency and inspected the Upstairs dormitory, principally to solve the problem of sanitary conveniences for the girls in the said dormitory. The engineer Mr Clarke reported, inter alia, that, because of termite presence and the state of the building, it would be too costly to repair and maintain. He recommended that it be abandoned.

He added that the external bathroom used by the girls was in a deplorable and insanitary state. The toilets, damaged and leaking, were inadequate (See Exhibit 14).

Mr Anderson, in his said memorandum to Mrs Spence-Jarrett (Exhibit 13), advised that,

“the original building is now structurally unsound... now a fire hazard... girls have no bathroom to use at nights when... locked in... the bathroom used in the day is in very bad condition...is woefully inadequate... and is contributing to health risks...”

He further commented with some degree of analytical opinion that, “The dissatisfactory physical conditions under which the wards are housed were major contributors to the unrest that resulted in major damage to the plant early this month.”

Recommending the repair of the bathroom currently used and the installation of new bathrooms, he added, “...from then Armadale was an emergency until now.” The bathroom facilities were improved.

Despite this poor state of the building in which the girls were housed, and its recommended abandonment, they remained in occupation in those conditions for over one year up to March 2008.

The Office dormitory — its origin

In March 2008, the girls in the Upstairs dormitory, condemned from May 2007 as unfit for habitation, caused a fire by lighting mattresses inside the dormitory. The decision was made to remove all the girls from the Upstairs dormitory to a room in the office building to east of the premises, between the Cottage dormitory and the Upstairs dormitory.

This room came to be known as the Office dormitory. Its dimensions were twenty (20) feet long by twelve (12) feet wide and ten (10) feet high. It had three sets of windows, to the front, (west), to the back (east) and double windows (north), facing the Cottage dormitory. All the windows were of wooden louvre blades with burglar bars on the inside.

In March 2008 “....a few days after the fire” in the Upstairs building Mrs Spence-Jarrett, then Deputy Commissioner, Mr Everton Hesson, Director of Juvenile Services and Mr Anderson travelled to Armadale. Mr Anderson, inter alia, said,

“I saw the size of the room that day before the girls were put into the Office dorm... over twenty (20) wards.... bunk beds were put in very close, not much space for movement.”

Hesson said, “[after the] fire... some girls moved to Office dorm... not remember how many... beds double decker... dense... close to each other.”

Mrs Spence-Jarrett recalled traveling to Armadale after the fire with Messrs Hesson and Anderson and she said, “Office dorm was brought into use in March 2008. I don’t think that 20 girls were put into Office dorm at once. I think 10 initially”

Later in evidence she said, “I understood about 12 girls would be in the [office] dorm ... 6 bunk beds... 12 mattresses... one girl to a bed ... the Director of Juvenile Services [Mr Hesson] told me.”

Mrs Spence-Jarrett asserted that she did not go into the Office dormitory to see if it was suitable but Mr Hesson did.

If Mrs Spence-Jarrett did not go into the said dormitory to observe, inspect and approve of the facilities and conditions under which the girls were to be housed, those were irresponsible and negligent acts of omission on her part. If she was aware of the lack of adequate space and insufficient beds in the said dormitory, which I find she was, her decision to house the girls there was unfortunate, uncaring and inhumane.

I accept Mr Anderson, as a forthright truthful witness, on whose evidence, I could rely.

I find that twenty-three (23) girls were moved into the Office dormitory in March 2008. The size of the dormitory was 20 feet by 12 feet in measurement. That accommodation was inadequate, from the outset.

Both Mrs Spence-Jarrett and Mr Hesson were evasive and less than truthful on the issues of the number of girls placed in the dormitory and whose decision it was to place the twenty-three (23) wards into the Office dormitory in March 2008.

Mrs Spence-Jarrett denied that at Armadale in March 2008, she instructed that the twenty-three (23) girls be placed in the Office dormitory or that she participated in removal of the girls. Quite curiously, she said,

“I did not give any instructions; the superintendent is in charge of the plant.” (Emphasis added)

She later said,

“The Director [Mr Hesson] had discussions with the Superintendent [Mrs Ferreira] and he made recommendation to me. I telephoned the Commissioner [Major Reece] and told him.

We made the decision.”

In contrast, Mr Anderson said,

“I participated in moving 23 girls to Office dormitory... not sure whose decision... I was aware of the size of the room and the number of wards... I saw the size of the room before the girls were put in ...over 20 wards ...I was of the view that a decision had been taken to relocate the girls. Deputy Commissioner Mrs Jarrett told us that we would be relocating the girls to the other location. She told us what was to be done.”

(Emphasis added)

Mr Anderson said that there was no “structured discussion” nor was there any “formal meeting”. The decision was taken and he was informed. He said that that was not unusual in his case as Property Manager.

He agreed that the girls in the Office dormitory were “actually packed inside,” and it was obviously overcrowded and insufficient. He was concerned that there was only one door, the bunk beds were put in very close “not much room for movement” and “it did strike me as a potential hazard in an emergency.” However, he did not express any reservation “hardly any alternative the Department had.”

He was aware of the National Building Code of Jamaica and of the minimum occupancy of institutional buildings, open wards and dormitories. He said, it was,

“1 person for each 50 Sq ft (5m2) floor area” (exhibit 15) Mrs Spence-Jarrett, in evidence, tellingly, emphasised that, in her functions she had,

“...a hands-on approach, I always have.”

I find that in March 2008, Mrs Spence-Jarrett, then Deputy Commissioner, unwisely, did make the fateful decision to house the twenty-three (23) girls in the Office dormitory measuring 20 feet by 12 feet and with seven (7) double bunk beds only, containing fourteen (14) mattresses. That decision was a patent breach of the duty to promote the best interests of children, violated the statutory requirements and was accordingly negligent, in all the circumstances.

Space accommodation in the Office dormitory

i. The National Building Code of Jamaica, 1983 (“the Code”) adopted from the Building Regulations issued under the Kingston and St. Andrew Act (second edition1992, metric units), provides in Table 1, paragraph 2.2.1 ‘Group B, institutional buildings open wards and dormitories’ that the minimum occupancy should be -

‘1 person for each 50 sq. ft (5m2) floor area’ (Exhibit 15).

The floor area of the Office dormitory was 240 sq ft Legally, therefore, no more than five (5) persons should properly have been accommodated in that dormitory 20 ft by 12 ft. Twentythree (23) girls were there on 22nd May 2009. Mr Neilson was aware of the provisions of the Code.

In reality, assuming that each mattress measured 6 ft 3 ins by 2 ft 6 ins (Mrs Hortense Higgins, a Correctional Officer, said that each mattress measured 5 ft by 2 1/2 ft), the seven (7) bunk beds would cover a floor area of approximately 108 sq ft.

If each of the twenty-three (23) girls was standing in the dormitory at the same time - she could only occupy a space of a mere 6 sq ft, that is, for example, one floor tile measuring 2 1/2 ft by 2 1/2 ft!! It is inconceivable to accept that of the senior management personnel of the Department of Corrections, neither Mr Hesson not Mr Neilson, raised even a whimper of protest or a contrary opinion at the decision of Mrs Spence-Jarrett to house over twenty (20) girls in that dormitory on that day in March 2008. This represented a major failure and breach of duty on the part of the said senior management personnel of the Department.

ii. Having only fourteen (14) mattresses, in some instances, there were two (2) girls to one bed in the Office dormitory.

iii. The Code also provides in Table 25 “minimum requirements for employee sanitary facilities, “page 52 (exhibit 16), that for every “1-10 female employees,” there ought to be provided, one toilet. For residential purpose, as in the Office dormitory at Armadale, there should be no less provision. There was only one toilet for the Office dormitory!

iv. The “minimum number of means of escape and exit required per storey” — the Code, Table 9, paragraph 3.2.2.1, page 16 (Exhibit17), is 2 exits for 1 to 100 persons. The dormitory had one door for all purposes.

Commenting on the various breaches of the Code at Armadale, Mr Anderson, boldly said:

“The Correctional Services does not seem to fit into that category — none of our institutions fit that”

Mrs Spence-Jarrett admitted that she had a safety concern that there was only one entrance to the Office dormitory and said,

“.... an additional entrance could not have been put in that Office dormitory.”

Mr Anderson observed that,

“The girls at Armadale were troubled girls, there for care, security and rehabilitation. Armadale fell short of providing proper care, rehabilitation and security for the girls.”

He said that before moving the girls into the Office dormitory,

“I did see the need for a fire escape —knocking out a wall and putting in a door would have served that purpose.”

He did not so nor did he recommend that it be done.

There was in that regard, patent neglect and apathy concerning the welfare of the girls at Armadale, by the senior administration of the Department.

Under these stressful conditions, in addition to extended periods of confinement, as I shall point out subsequently, the girls in the Office dormitory continued their painful existence up to the 22nd day of May 2009.

  0 comments

  4 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  4 comments

  7 comments

  1 comments

  3 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  6 comments

  7 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments