Opposition MP Clive Mullings broke ranks with his colleagues Tuesday by severely criticising the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime bill.

Despite his party’s expressed backing of the Government by supporting the provisions of the bill, Mullings denounced it as “one of the most radical departures from the principle of jurisprudence as it is known in Jamaica”.

“History will judge us, jurisprudence will judge us as to the constitutionality of this legislation, as to how we are going to turn on its head the basic principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence until proven guilty,” Mullings said.

He criticised the bill for allowing for the forfeiture of assets without the benefit of a charge being laid to allow the accused to be proven guilty by evidence brought before a court.

“What this piece of legislation purports to do is to seek to convict persons for what is deemed to be criminal lifestyles, but the legislation does not interpret what is a criminal lifestyle. It doesn’t define it,” said Mullings, who is also an attorney.

“It is saying that on information, not evidence, given to a court in relation to forfeiture, that the court may assume certain things, and the person against whom the information is given to the court must produce evidence to rebut that information.

“It turns on its head, the notion of being innocent until proven guilty beyond any doubt. What it does firstly, it waters down the requirement of evidence to be tested under oath, under cross-examination. What it does is turn onto you, against whom information is given, a responsibility to prove your innocence.

“This is no trifling matter. We must be careful that we don’t use the fear of crime to propel us into uncharted waters from which we can’t retreat,” Mullings said.

He said that the object of the bill speaks to difficulty in proving cases and the need to allow that, in cases where the police are unable to bring charges against individuals, information about a criminal lifestyle can be used to bring forfeiture proceedings in which the subject has to prove his/her innocence.

Mullings noted that what is called information or intelligence is oftentimes found to be nothing more than “suss”.

“Many a wrong has been done by men who are well-intentioned and so we must be careful… this goes to the essence of human rights, because when you go after those who have committed wrong, you must not take away those who are innocent. It is the law that is the safeguard,” he insisted.

Mullings expressed the “sincere hope” that the Senate would look keenly at the legislation.

He said that he had no doubt that the members of the Joint Select Committee, which reviewed the draft bill, had good intentions. So he was not making an indictment of their intentions, but expressing his alarm at the implications.

Earlier, the Opposition’s spokesman on justice, Delroy Chuck, who was also a member of the Joint Select Committee, welcomed the bill.

“We would also be happy to see when this legislation is fully enforced in due course,” Chuck said.

He described it as a “good piece of legislation” which, if properly enforced, can curb the activities of those who are involved in organised crime.

Minister of national security, Dr Peter Phillips, pointed out that the bill had been given “very careful consideration”.

“It has been considered not only by the committee, but by critical elements, including the bar association, the bankers’ association, the Norman Manley Law School, and the Farquharson Institute, all of whose views have been taken into account,” Phillips said.

“It is our view that the passage of this legislation, and the acceptance of the report of your committee will represent an important new addition to the arsenal of crime-fighting available to the people of Jamaica,” Phillips told the Speaker.