JAMAICANS For Justice (JFJ) on Tuesday welcomed the decision by the Access to Information (ATI) Appeal Tribunal shared on Friday, January 28, 2022, which charged that several withheld and redacted documents regarding the 2009 tragedy at Armadale Juvenile Correctional Centre for Girls should be shared.

In the ruling, the ATI Tribunal declared that the exemptions claimed by the Government respondents were not applicable in the circumstances asserted.

The lobby group added that the ruling comes 12 years after the Armadale prison tragedy in May 2009 whilst there is still no public accountability for the brutal State repression in response to several child prisoners protesting the inhumane and torturous living conditions.

Seven children were killed by a fire started by the police and over 50 children physically and psychologically injured. Following the tabling of the 2009 Commission of Enquiry report and years of public advocacy, there has not been a full public accounting for the circumstances that led to the children’s protest on May 22, 2009 and what happened afterwards, such as systemic changes and disciplinary action. Over the years, in search of answers, JFJ and other human rights advocates have made numerous requests to various Government bodies with limited success.

In 2015, Alexis Goffe and team comprising Danielle Andrade of Goffe Law and Sasheeka Richards of JFJ began a series of ATI requests for documents containing information about circumstances prior to, connected with and following the tragedy. Requested documents included the transcripts of the Armadale Commission of Enquiry, as well as those related to court cases regarding events surrounding the Armadale Juvenile Correctional Centre.

Several agencies decided to withhold or heavily redact information in these documents. The two justifications they relied on were that the documents contained staff members’ personal information (using Section 22 of the Act) and that the information was defamatory (using Section 33).

In 2017, Goffe enlisted the help of JFJ’s legal team to appeal the decision of Government agencies before the ATI Appeal Tribunal. The ATI Appeal involved the Ministry of Justice, Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Education, Youth and Information, the Department of Correctional Services, Ministry of Health, Offices of Service Commission, Jamaica Constabulary Force, Office of the Cabinet and St Ann Municipal Corporation — all of which were represented by the Attorney General’s Chambers, except for St Ann Municipal Corporation.

Years after the initiation of the appeals, the Appeal Tribunal’s ruling agreed with Goffe that Sections 22 and 33 simply were not applicable. It was argued by Government respondents that exemption from disclosure should be made as the disciplinary measures taken out against State agents were of a personal nature.

Goffe argued that one’s work capacity and performance in the exercising of its duties could not be construed as “personal affairs”, especially when exercising such functions as an agent of the State. The Tribunal agreed, and ruled that any report outlining the disciplinary measures were not personal affairs of any person, but even if they were, it was not unreasonable to disclose them given the passage of the time since the incidents occurred.

The Tribunal further noted that Section 33 provides for defence against a suit in the event that the document itself contains defamatory material, and as such, were not applicable for exemption as asserted by the Government respondents.

The Appellant and the legal team are now reviewing the list of outstanding documents that are to be released and will continue to follow up with the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Meanwhile, JFJ has expressed dissatisfaction with several administrative processes, or lack thereof, which came to light during the series of ATI requests. In some instances, government agencies asserted that documents could not be found or were not “within [their] possession, custody or control”.

In response, JFJ stated that this signals poor record management, or at worst, a further attempt at withholding requested documents.

Subsequently, JFJ also called for the ATI Unit to be legislated into an oversight body to oversee the operations of the ATI Act, and to develop and enforce guidelines.

“This body should also aim to increase the accountability system for compliance with the ATI Act by improving the capacity of agencies to centrally track requests for information and the responses of access officers, and implementing automatic publication of information to reduce individualised decision-making related to each request.

“In the same breath, we hope that the Appeal Tribunal’s ruling will be instructive in how the State agencies interpret critical components of the ATI Act, such as a right to access official documents for public interest versus exemption provisions regarding documents of a sensitive nature,” JFJ said.