After more than two years of deliberations, the controversial bill amending the Fingerprint Act is expected to be debated in Parliament during the final session of 2004/2005, which ends on March 31.

As a sign of his determination to have the long-awaited bill passed before the close of the 2004/2005 session, Minister of National Security Dr Peter Phillips last Wednesday convened a meeting of the Joint Select Committee studying the bill.

The meeting came, surprisingly, prior to today’s resumption of sittings after the 2004 Christmas break. However, conclusion of the committee’s deliberations on the bill will have to wait – at least for another two weeks. A final draft needs to be completed by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel (CPC) and a report has to be sent to the House of Representatives for approval. This will be followed by the Senate’s approval and, possibly, a third debate in the House triggered by new adjustments which are likely to arise in the Senate.

However, Dr Phillips made his urgency known at last Wednesday’s meeting, pointing out that the committee has to conclude its review now. The final draft of the bill containing the amendments proposed by the committee, as well as the draft report should be circulated to members by this week.

The fingerprinting and photographing of suspects are widely accepted as essential features of modern law enforcement throughout the world. The government, in its continuing drive to update and modernise legislation in this area, had decided from 2001 to amend the existing law in order to standardise Jamaican law in keeping with established practices in most Commonwealth jurisdictions and in the United States. These steps have included new anti-money laundering and terrorism legislation.

The Bill currently before the committee seeks to amend the current Act to:

(1) provide legal authority for fingerprinting and photographing, with a Court Order, of persons taken into custody in connection with certain specified offences;

(2) institute new schedules of offences; and

(3) increase the penalties for a breach of the rules relating to the work of the Fingerprints Bureau and for breaches of the Act.

One of the points addressed in a draft report prepared by the parliamentary committee, was the demand of Opposition members that there should be no fingerprinting of juveniles and that the taking of fingerprints had no place in the Family Court.

The Opposition felt that the considerations for the juveniles should be included in a separate Act, but government members felt that in light of the special provisions in the Act, there was no need to have separate legislation for the taking of fingerprints of juveniles and adults.

There was also the issue of the definition of fingerprint.

It was pointed out that technology exists which makes it possible to utilise both palm prints and foot prints as identification features.

The committee has recommended that a definition be inserted using the wording, “to include palm print and foot print”.

They also accepted the point raised by Opposition members that persons in custody should be advised of their rights and the fact that he/she did not need to consent to being fingerprinted or photographed. A suggestion that the warning should be included in the regulations instead of the Act was opposed by opposition members who felt that the Act should, at least, include the phrase, “subject to the warning as prescribed”.

The committee eventually decided that in the case of a child, aged 12-17, provision should be made for an independent person to act on his behalf. An amendment to the Act reflecting this has been proposed.

Another major point concerned the taking of fingerprints and photographs of persons taken into custody without their consent “on the written authorisation of an authorised officer”.

Opposition members had a problem with the provision. They felt that there was no justification for taking away the authority from the court and vest it in a police officer, of whatever rank.

The Opposition members suggested that appropriate regulations be made in cases where the police deemed it necessary to take the fingerprints and photographs of persons lawfully in custody but who do not consent to being fingerprinted. Among the suggestions was that arrangements be made for the police to go before a judge in chamber, at short notice, to have the court order made.

They argued that before additional powers are given to the police, they would have to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place.

One such safeguard, suggested by Opposition MP Abe Dabdoub last Wednesday, was that the police should be provided with videotaping equipment for the compulsory recording of the cases of “forced” fingerprinting and photographing. The proposal was accepted by the committee.

The committee has now concluded its examination of the bill, as well as the accompanying regulations. The CPC is expected to move quickly to draft the final Bill which will be taken to Parliament for approval. This is expected within another few weeks.

– balfordh@jamaicaobserver.com