One member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) is hailing his colleague, Constable Miskha Sterling-Gibson, for successfully mounting a case of unfair punishment by her superiors, who had sent her back to police training school after her participation in a viral TikTok video challenge in 2024 while in her uniform.

Sterling-Gibson was the only one of three members of her team on that day who participated in the
TikTok challenge who challenged the punishment for breach of the JCF’s social media policy.

The other two cops involved pleaded guilty and accepted similar sanctions.

In the controversial video, which was posted in January 2024, the three were depicted in uniform making fun of certain public perceptions of the police whenever they interact with the public.

In the video, each of the three had their assigned lines to deliver, which included:

“I am a police officer in Jamaica, of course mi a go skip the KFC line.”

“I am a police officer, of course mi a go ask har fi har number”.

“I am a police officer, of course criminal going escape in nearby bushes.”

“I am a police officer in Jamaica, of course cabbie a go get a ticket.”

“I am a police officer, of course mi a go wear mi uniform go embassy.”

“I am a police officer, of course we don’t believe in corruption.”

“I am a police officer, of course mi a go use the siren fi come out a traffic.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Richard Stewart, who was the first defendant in the claim, in his affidavit, said that he became aware of a video on social media and formed the view that it was dangerous for Sterling-Gibson to “operate with the powers of a constable with capacity gaps in her training”.

He said her online presence constituted a breach of the JCF’s social media policy which warranted training “aimed at educating her on the good conduct of JCF members in relation to the use of social media”.

He also said that after an investigation was carried out, Sterling-Gibson and the other cops “were informed that their actions on the social media platform were unprofessional and constituted a breach of the JCF social media policy as they recorded and published inappropriate video while in uniform, armed with firearms and other government properties. As a result, the claimant was directed to go the National Police College of Jamaica for a four-month remedial basic training course. This was not a sanction but in keeping with the powers of the commissioner of police as set out in the JCF Book of Rules”.

The male colleague of Sterling-Gibson said while he agreed that the video could be seen as promoting a negative narrative that was already in the public domain as it relates to how some police operate, he thought the senior members of the force went overboard with their decision.

“It was a joke. All types of people were doing the challenge. Judges did it, police overseas and firefighters and so they just jumped on the trend. The force was offended because they said certain things. By right it is not a lie, but because the joke was coming from the horse’s mouth it became a problem,” the policeman argued.

“I agree with the ruling of the court because I don’t think one video should have gone so far. The three officers who were implicated went through a whole heap a stress. It was humiliation plus tax. They had to be in the same batch with all those who were not police yet. While they were at training school the other female officer, her mother died. What they went on wasn’t remedial training like they were told. It was six months’ confinement and they had to do it because the orders came from the bigger heads,” the policeman explained.

He added that they had to get out of bed early with the recruits in training, go on muster parades and sit amongst them during classes.

He also alleged that during the period when they were sent back to training school, their personal lives were affected.

“There was no stove and they couldn’t cook and so they were required to join the lines with the recruits [to get food]. It was humiliating. The same ones in the training already knew about them so they would point at them, laugh at them, scorn them and they had to endure it. It just demotivated them in every way, based on what they expressed to me.

“The female constable, it affected her because she is a married woman. To know that her husband had to be in bed every night while his wife was confined somewhere was rough. He wasn’t seeing his wife. The only day they got to go home was every Saturday morning and had to be back by Sunday evening and that was only after the judicial review began.

“That was the only time he got to see his wife and the only time the other female officer got to see her child. It affected the male officer as well because he has a little son,” the cop claimed.

Insisting that the video “was a joke” he said, “They didn’t mean any harm. When they heard that the commissioner was calling them in, everybody thought they would ask them to do back another video and flip it into something positive highlighting the good things of the JCF.”

Last week, the Supreme Court issued a formal order that DCP Stewart acted outside the scope of the Police Regulations when he ordered Constable Sterling-Gibson to face confinement training at the National Police College of Jamaica for longer than the maximum three days that is allowed.

The period of confinement was not confirmed as Sterling-Gibson, in her affidavit, had said it was for six months, while Stewart and the second defendant Assistant Commissioner of Police Michael Phipps, who at the time was senior superintendent, said it was four months.

“There is no documented evidence of the confinement for training,” the court said. “The claimant says she was confined to basic training for six months. The defendants say it was four months. The court was not made aware by either the claimant or defendant as to whether the claimant ought to have received that instruction in writing. If documentation had been provided for the court’s benefit, it would have been clear to the court whether confinement was indeed six months, as per the evidence of the claimant, or four months as per the evidence of the defendants.”

The court also ruled that Phipps exceeded his authority when he imposed further punishment on Sterling-Gibson and the other two. The court found that she was punished twice for the same incident and ordered that that decision be quashed.

The court also said that Sterling-Gibson had already served the sanction legitimately arising from the social media post and is not liable to serve any further punishment in relation to the matter.

However, Sterling-Gibson is expected to cover her own costs in the claim as per an order of the court.

The National Police College of Jamaica.