Triple NIDS fine!
Police want $3m penalty for ID card tampering
Published:Thursday | March 18, 2021 | 12:27 AMEdmond Campbell/Senior Parliamentary Reporter -
Lawmakers should impose tougher penalties on persons who wilfully tamper with a national identification card under the proposed National Identification System (NIDS) law, Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) Director of Legal Affairs Alethia Whyte has proposed.
The NIDS bill, which is now being reviewed by a joint select committee of Parliament, recommends a fine not exceeding $1 million for tampering with the national identification card.
In her submission to the committee on Wednesday, White said that the penalty was too low and not in line with the nature and consequences of the offence.
The JCF has recommended that a person found guilty of tampering with the national identification card should, on conviction in a Parish Court, be liable to a fine not exceeding $3 million.
If the case is tried in a Circuit Court and there is a conviction, the person should face a fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 25 years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Committee Chairman Delroy Chuck said that lawmakers would consider imposing stiffer penalties for the offence.
White also wants legislators to impose more stringent penalties for the offence of permitting or inducing another person to use a national identification card in order to impersonate an enrolled individual. The penalty provided is a fine not exceeding $3 million.
However, the JCF is pushing for an option for imprisonment, arguing that there were serious consequences that could flow from this offence, particularly for the innocent person that was impersonated.
Meanwhile, the JCF is seeking exemption under the law from having to apply to a judge of the Supreme Court to obtain information from the National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) in a case where the identity information requested was for the prevention, detection, or investigation of an offence under the proposed statute.
Commenting on this recommendation, Chuck, who is also the justice minister, said that if the police needed information for verification, they could approach a judge of the Supreme Court and provide an explanation to justify their request.
“Where the commissioner of police seeks information under Section 24 (of the Act), he is only going to get verification. He is not going to get a fingerprint or a facial recognition,” said Chuck, adding that “the database can only be accessed to verify”.
“We have provided under this bill that no information that is there will be revealed to the public at large, including the commissioner of police. However, in specific cases where the commissioner of police can persuade a judge that some information should be revealed to the police, that is the situation in which that information will be given to the police.”
Chuck noted that once information was obtained by the commissioner, he was under a duty to maintain the confidentiality of that data.
However, White argued that in a case where the police obtained an order from a judge and the NIRA was directed to provide information on an individual for the purpose of an investigation, the particulars obtained could not be held confidential when used to carry out a prosecution.
Chuck stated that once a judge gave permission to use the information, there would be no problem.