Editorial | The Alando Gray affair

The police, appropriately, have acknowledged their blunder and apologised for placing in cyberspace a photograph of the wrong Alando Gray, who is reported to be under investigation for murder.

But while the constabulary eventually did the right thing and said that it has reviewed its internal systems to ensure that such an error doesn’t recur, there are several questions that arise from this incident that still need to be addressed.

One, of course, is how it happened in the first place, who was held accountable, and how. Another is if the pictured Mr Gray, as he claimed, had never before been in trouble with the law, how, and from where, was his photograph obtained for posting on the constabulary’s social media sites.

There is also the troubling matter of the length of time it took between the police concluding that they had the wrong Mr Gray, to the removal of his picture from the site and the constabulary’s issuance of an apology.

And given the recent concerns by rights activists at a rising level of police killings, there is the question of whether his claim of taunts, and more than subtle threats, received while being transported from Mandeville, Manchester, to Portmore, St Catherine, has been investigated. If Mr Gray’s allegations are true, they also serve to reinforce an image that many people have of the police force, which the constabulary is keen to shed.

There were 148 cases up to June 16, compared to 180, which was an increase of 27 per cent over the previous year, for all of 2024.

DARK IMPLICATIONS

Alando Gray’s ordeal was highlighted last week by Television Jamaica (TVJ).

On May 28, while at work in the parish of Manchester, he received from his brother a digital poster, issued by the police, to the effect that he was wanted in connection with a murder investigation. At first Mr Gray assumed it was a prank, until other people began sending him the same image.

Concerned, he raised the issue, he said, with a police neighbour. It was confirmed that he was in fact wanted by the police in Portmore. So, accompanied by his father and a pastor, Mr Gray turned himself in to the police at Mandeville, the Manchester parish capital.

From Mandeville Mr Gray was taken to Portmore, St Catherine. What he said happened on that trip is chilling and ought to have been, or to be, the subject of a thorough investigation.

His police escorts, Mr Gray said, taunted him with claims of being a killer and his status of being a wanted man. “You shouldn’t tun yu self in an mek we come fi yu,” he said he was told.

That suggestion of an opportunity lost by the police when Mr Gray turned himself in, rather than allowing cops to come in search of him is pregnant with dark implications.

From the start of his ordeal it apparently took four days for the police to concede that an error had been made and for Mr Gray – whose lawyer had interceded – to be released.

What, however, is surprising is that it was another 10 days before the police issued its public statement and apology, and for the photograph of the mistaken Alando Gray to be removed from the constabulary’s public facing social media accounts. But given the nature of cyberspace, it is hardly likely that those images can be totally erased.

In the meantime, Mr Gray said he was fearful of venturing from his home, concerned that police officers might see, believe that he was an escapee “and shoot me”. It is the kind of fate that many people who commented on Mr Gray’s person-of-interest photograph had in mind, or expected, if he hadn’t followed that course of action.

“In light of this incident, we have conducted a thorough review of our internal processes and quality management systems to ensure the accuracy and integrity of all information we release to the public,” the constabulary said in its statement.

It added: “We are committed to preventing any recurrence of such errors in the future. As always, we remain dedicated not only to reducing crime and ensuring public safety but also to upholding the human rights and civil liberties of every individual.”

BREACHED OPERATIONAL RULES

That, however, doesn’t reveal what went wrong and how, and what protocols/regulatory systems may have been invoked in the case.

Such questions, and being frank with the answers, don’t undermine the police’s investigative capacities. Nor do they undermine the police. Rather, they build trust, thereby widening public support for the constabulary.

Then there is that ride that Mr Gray said he had with those four officers who transported him from Mandeville to Portmore. If Mr Gray spoke truthfully, they are likely to have breached operational rules.

Obviously, it will be his word against the police officers, who probably have a different account of events. An investigation might be inclusive, but it would be clear that, even if Mr Gray didn’t speak the truth, that kind of behaviour has no place in a modern constabulary.

Transparently addressing issues such as these, and holding people accountable for failures doesn’t undermine or weaken the constabulary’s capacity to fight crime. In the long run, it strengthens it, because it builds trust in the institution.

The JCF has gone part of the way on this front. It just needs to fully embrace the rest.