Orville Taylor | Un-locking the Nzinga case

An attorney once told me that it is better for 1,000 guilty men to walk free than for one single innocent person to be convicted. My Rastafarian bredda in the academy sent me a message last week, expressing great disappointment in the decision of Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Paula Llewellyn not to proffer criminal charges against the female police officer who allegedly trimmed Rastafarian youth Nzinga King while she was in custody for a minor offence. What seems not to be in dispute is that she took issue with the conduct of police officers carrying out their duties and expressed it in a fashion that on the face of it, rendered her liable to prosecution for a misdemeanour.

There is no question that young Ms King had her locks removed. At this point, it is still very unclear how they were detached, who or how many persons removed them, or whether they were shorn or plucked.

Shearing of locks in a country like Jamaica is a big deal. Despite the fact that too many ordinary citizens have bastardised it, I still see dreadlocks as a covenant. Thus, cosmetic wearers or those who do it for style potentially trivialise it. Given that scores of Rastafari have been discriminated against, imprisoned, and even killed for wearing this manifestation of their faith. My personal view is that it has the same status as the Jewish side locks and Kippah or the Sikhs turban and full beard.

‘Marring’ a Rastafarian is a heinous offence. Unlike many of my bathroom locks dreads, who, in my opinion, literally mock the dread, a person who is not a Rastafari should not have the entitlement of constitutional protection over ‘hairstyle’. In the 1970s, as a teenager at the epicentre of the Pope’s influence in Jamaica, my Catholic priest headmaster told me that if I wanted to wear my hair unkempt or uncut, then I should declare my Rastafari faith. This was during a period when Rasta pickney were not able to wear dreadlocks at most schools, including ironically, Haile Selassie I Secondary.

SCARRED HISTORY

After 60 years of independence and 82 years of electing our own politicians, 59 years since the Coral Gardens killings and the two decades of deprivation of human rights under the Suppression of Crimes Act from 1974 to 1994, it must be a very brave, callous, or foolish police officer who would cut a Rastafarian’s locks, under any circumstances. Although we are nowhere near the bottom quintile, we have a scarred history of human rights abuses.

Lawyers have discussed the points of law on the matter. The Constitution and other statutes are inviolable. Nonetheless, there are thresholds that have to be crossed before it can be determined that someone has broken the law, transgressed another’s constitutional rights, or committed an offence.

In 2010, we put in place the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM). Say what you want about former Commissioner Terrence Williams, he and his team always acted in ways that were consistent with what they as lawyers believed was legally sound. True, law is not science, but attorneys all agree on the primacy of rules, procedures, and evidence. No great fan of the constabulary, Williams did accept that despite his suspicions, it was only a minority of cases of alleged police misconduct that met the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. If you are going to take away the life or liberty of any citizen, you must be absolutely sure. All defence attorneys live by this standard. Many a criminal has walked free because of a sliver of doubt smaller than a louse’s whisker.

HYPOCRISY

It is sheer hypocrisy to hold police officers facing criminal charges in the execution of their duties to a lower standard of evidence.

Current Commissioner of INDECOM, Hugh Faulkner, has a fat résumé in the practice of law. A former head of the Legal Aid Council, he knows what a prosecutable case is. INDECOM’s recommendation to the DPP was that there was no basis for criminal charges. Simply because the DPP and INDECOM were in accord, I cannot approve the lynching of anyone. My stand would be the same had it been any non-police.

Doubtless, Llewellyn has a major public relations crisis ‘wussalackahow’ she recommended that Sgt Tameca Taylor (no known relation of mine) be charged for the sacramental ‘ishen’ being cultivated by her Rastafarian spouse. However, optics are not law, and she carries no brief for Faulkner or Kent Pantry, her predecessor. Those who dispute her stance, instructed by the body, whose remit is to evaluate police behaviour, must tell us, the non-lawyers, where in law INDECOM erred. Otherwise, leave the impression management to the marketers and behavioural scientists.

The matter might not be finished because civil action uses the ‘balance of probability’. Nonetheless, even at that lower bar, the evidence cannot be frivolous.

- Dr Orville Taylor is head of the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.