The reduction of crime is of paramount importance to any government. Law-enforcement officials continue to find creative ways to control and minimise the behaviour of criminal elements. It is an injustice to believe that any one entity can solve the crime problem facing our country Jamaica. If we really want to achieve Vision 2030, there has to be a concerted effort on the part of all Jamaicans.

The lawlessness that engulfs our society continues to stabilise the fear of crime that is embedded in the minds of our citizens. There are an abundance of laws that govern how our citizens should behave. What is lacking is the respect for the rule of law and enforcement of these rules.

The doctrine of public nuisance holds that gang activity constitutes a public nuisance. Criminal gangs claim areas within a community as their own, taking over street corners, public places, even schools. Gang members often mark these territories with graffiti and make these public areas off limits to anyone who is not a member of their gang. This violates the rights conferred by the Jamaican Constitution to freedom of movement.

When gang members assemble, they often engage in illegal activity, such as gun-for-drugs trade, human trafficking, and lottery-scamming activities. Because these activities intimidate the community, they qualify as public nuisances. The public nuisance doctrine is to protect citizens’ rights that gang activity violates.

I wish to introduce a procedure that is referred to as civil gang injunction. This procedure is used in the United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada. While they may be concerns, the positive effect of CGI is that it heralded as an effective and innovative tool to combat street gang activity and to reduce the strangleholds that gangs can have on communities.

What is a civil gang injunction?

It is a civil tool that allows the police to apply to a court (Supreme Court) for an injunction against an individual or group to prevent gang-related activities. The aims of the gang injunction seeks to:

1. prevent the respondent from engaging in, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence; and/or

2. protect the respondent from gang-related violence

Civil gang injunctions can be an effective tool for prosecutors and police. The effect over the medium and long term seeks to break down violent gang culture, prevent escalation of violent behaviour, and engage gang members in positive activities to help them leave the gang.

In applying for an injunction, the burden of proof rests on the applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has engaged in, encouraged or assisted gang-related violence. The applicant must convince the court that the gang injunction is absolutely necessary to prevent the respondent from such violence.

Effect of civil gang injunctions

Civil gang injunctions are designed to be used in specific circumstances as part of a broader strategic response to local gang problem. There may be instances where the gang-related activity does not reach the point where criminal prosecution is forthcoming. However, applying civil gang injunctions may be an appropriate response in that it offers communities relief from gang-related activities and the possibility for the rehabilitation of gang members. The police will be better positioned to intervene before the act becomes a criminal behaviour.

Civil gang injunctions can be used to curtail the activities of the lottery scammers with a view to eradicate the practice which arguably has contributed to the senseless killings in the western end of the island. Those who are before the court or those who are suspected of being involved could be barred/blacklisted from being in possession of, owning, or operating smartphones, computers and related products, access to the Internet, inter alia. By invoking the civil gang injunction it eventually widens the gap between scammers and their victims and, over time, eliminates the practice.

In 1999, civil gang injunctions were implemented in Phoenix, Arizona, against 13 members of the Los Cuatro Milpas (LCM) gang. Members were prohibited from “standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering, or appearing anywhere in public view” with any other LCM member. The LCM members had intimidated and terrorised the neighbourhood residents and visitors. “Their illegal activities have persisted for years unabated and showed no signs of ceasing,” remarked Assistant City Attorney Christina Koehn. By putting the injunction in place, and minimising congregating on neighbourhood streets, law enforcement has been able to prevent the LCM members from engaging in gang activity.

In a case study conducted by the United Kingdom Home Office, and published March 2015, the Home Office reported that, in 2011, the police recorded a series of serious incidents in one district ranging from firearm discharges, kidnapping assaults, and two gang murders. These activities were linked to a particular group and went unabated. In July 2012, an ex parte injunction took place at the County Court at which 12 interim gang injunctions were granted in respect of the main members. Each gang member had 10 prohibitions and two requirements placed upon them, including not entering certain specified areas, not communicating with certain named individuals, and a prohibition on travelling in a motorised vehicle with two or more people except in a taxi or upon a public transport. The injunction had an immediate impact on the community. Full injunctions were granted in May 2013 and the community remains crime-free.

I am of the view that civil gang injunctions could be looked at in tackling the scamming activities in the major geographic areas and the major criminal gangs in the hot spots throughout Jamaica. The ultimate benefits should result in reduced fear of crime, more generally and improved community order. Ultimately, residents in neighbourhoods targeted by injunctions may experience increased social cohesion and informal social control, more collective and neighbourhood social efficacy, more willingness to call police in threatening situations, and improved perceptions of police authority. This article is designed to expand our minds and continue the discussion in fighting crime.

There is no failure except in no longer trying. — Chris Bradford

Victor Barrett is a student at Norman Manley Law School. Send comments to the Observer or vicbar5@gmail.com.