British experts say the local witness protection programme needs to increase its staff by 50 per cent, one of the few changes suggested, according to government officials who say the programme has largely been given the thumbs up.

But it appears that it will take a lot more than a nod from the Brits to erase the widely-held perception, here, that the programme is unsafe and under-funded.

Gilbert Scott, the permanent secretary in the National Security Ministry, said a cursory glance at the British team’s report had confirmed the ministry’s belief that the Jamaican Justice Protection Programme – the formal name – was on the right track.

“We haven’t had a chance to fully study the report. But it does reaffirm that the programme is working and it’s a successful programme,” he told the Sunday Observer Friday morning. “It does make some recommendations for improvements and those will be considered.”

The permanent secretary refused to discuss the report in any great detail until it had been further analysed, but appeared to suggest that, staffing apart, no major changes had been recommended by the British team that arrived in the island late last month.

“My sense is, really, that it recommends some administrative staff, but (as for) the basic construct and the operation of the programme, there has been no criticism,” Scott said. “We need some more resource persons; certainly for the growth of the programme, we need to provide those persons.”

Citing security reasons, he would not say how many employees are now on staff.

It is this need to shroud the programme in secrecy, Scott said, that has fuelled the misconception that the Jamaican Justice Protection Programme is not safe.

“It has been our feeling that we didn’t want to attract too much attention to the programme,” he said. “The reality is that it has been extremely successful.

In all of the time since the programme has existed, we have never lost a witness who has been on the programme and the numbers are quite significant.”

When the ministry took control of the programme in 1997, he said, they inherited 58 primary witnesses who had been in the system when it was being run by the police.

“Keep in mind that the programme protects not only the primary witness, but the persons close to them. Since 1997, we have had 141 witnesses move through the programme successfully; and there are currently 110 primary witnesses being protected,” Scott said.

“If you add their families, you get 260 members; and so that is a total population of 370 persons who are being protected by the programme. In all of this time, there has not been a casualty, of any kind, of persons who are under the protection of the programme.”

With the help of witnesses in the programme, he added, 114 of the 154 cases brought before the courts since 1997 had been successfully prosecuted. The convictions, he said, included 24 death sentences, 51 life imprisonments and other sentences ranging from 24 to 40 years.

“With that kind of record, I think that the lack of public confidence has to be as a result of our reticence to talk openly about the programme,” Scott said.

In 2001, legislation was passed to provide a legal foundation for the programme which began informally in the 1990s, when a few police officers tried to protect witnesses who had information that could help cases on which they were working.

As it grew and became increasingly difficult for cops to run, it was shifted to the national security ministry, which then had K D Knight at the helm.

“It was a decision to really improve the management and, to, in a sense, give people a greater sense of confidence in the programme that this decision was made,” Scott said. “It was thought, then, that it was one way to boost public confidence, to sort of make the separation from the police operation and bring it into the ministry.”

But the mistrust has been hard to shake, with six out of seven Corporate Area residents interviewed by the Sunday Observer saying they had no confidence in the programme. (See vox pop). One of the major concerns that has been consistently highlighted over the years is the fear that the programme is under-funded.

Primary witnesses are often required to move, quit their jobs and start a new life. In exchange for their testimony in court, the government keeps them safe and pays their living expenses.

“It provides for their accommodations, all of the living expenses, utilities, medical care, education, counselling, retraining, so it provides for the essential needs of persons on the programme,” Scott explained.

He maintained that the programme was adequately funded, adding that its budget had been upped, this fiscal year, to $80 million. Last year, he said, the budget was about $60 million. The increase, Scott said, reflected the growing number of witnesses in the programme.

“Like anything else, one could always use more (money),” he conceded. “But it is one of those programmes that get priority attention from the ministry. So the complaint about lack of resources is not something that I think is justified.”

But try telling that to a woman whose story was told during TVJ’s 10 o’clock newscast last Thursday night. She complained that she desperately regretted signing on to the witness protection programme because of the financial problems she was experiencing.

Her utilities had been cut off in the past, she said, and her monthly allowance was less than half what she had been promised when she agreed to participate.

Scott would not comment on any specific case, but insisted that the “programme provides for the care and welfare of all those who are under protection”.

Assistant Commissioner of Police in charge of criminal investigations George Williams, who had placed witnesses in the programme when it was run by cops, is familiar with the complaints. But like, Scott, he felt that what the programme offers is adequate.

“People complained, yes, that there were not given enough money, but what is enough?” Williams said. “Enough is relative, comfortable is relative. You can live in the largest house and you are not comfortable. You can have a lot of money and you are not comfortable, you can have a little bit of money and you are comfortable, so it’s relative.”

In addition to concerns about the financial arrangements, there have also been fears, over the years, that the integrity of the programme can be compromised by leaks from within the police force.

Williams said he has heard those fears expressed but knows of no such case.

“People say it, so I can’t tell them not to say it because they probably know why they say it. I don’t,” he said.