Brown: Ja lost out in rejecting UK prison offer

Opposition senators while supporting the passing of the Corrections (Amendment) Act, 2021 yesterday charged that the bill, which is seeking to institute tougher penalties with fines of up $3 million and sentences of up to five years, would have been more effective had Jamaica accepted the gift from the British government to build a modern prison.

The bill, which seeks to amend the Corrections Act of 1985, as well as the Correctional Institution (Adult Correctional Centre) Rules, 1991 was tabled and passed in the Lower House on December 14, before being passed in the Senate yesterday.

“We support the bill, but this bill would be in better stead if we had not – as a country, well not as a country – as an opportunist, some of us were, in rejecting the offer to build a brand new prison in our country,” said Senator Lambert Brown, in his contribution.

“It couldn't be beyond us to negotiate with Dave Cameron or this government, good friend Boris Johnson, [a] revision in the terms of that prison because let us be clear, prison or no prison accepted, the deportees are coming from the United Kingdom, coming every month almost,” he added.

Neither the Portia Simpson Miller nor the Andrew Holness administration took up the $5.5-billion offer, which lapsed.

But the then Holness-led Opposition had criticised the offer, saying that it would have been more prudent to build schools.

Modern prison

However, Brown said the country has not gained anything by its refusal.

“So if it was to prevent deportees coming, we lost that battle. If it was to build schools – as the opposition leader then said we should choose schools over the prison – we haven't gotten schools.

“That prison would be a modern prison, which could build isolation cells which could keep these criminals, who are giving instructions out there, on lockdown … ,” he said

Brown added that a modern prison that would be manned by fewer staff and driven by technology and would also prevent the frequent escapes of inmates.

However, in supporting the bill he called for sensitisation of the correctional workers to ensure that they are aware of the changes and for the Government to provide the workers with transportation given “that the criminals behind bars are very sophisticated and have tentacles out in the street that can do harm to our people”.

Further, while noting that it is not the intention of the Opposition to make a controversy of the bill, said the opposition senators want to make it clear the Interception of Communication Act, which was introduced under a People's National Party administration, must be incorporated among the tools being utilised.

Minister without Portfolio in the Ministry of National Security, Senator Matthew Samuda, noted that the amendments were driven out of a need to address the rapid technological advancements, particularly in the area of communications, which pose a challenge for the country's correctional institutions.

“There has been an increase in the use of telecommunication devices by inmates to maintain contact with criminal networks outside of the confines of correctional institutions.

“As we expound on the utilisation of telecommunication devices by inmates, I want to particularly highlight that through the use of cellular telephones and electronic communication devices, incarcerated violence producers – some of whom are themselves gang leaders – have been or are able to directly and/or indirectly influence criminal gangs and drug activities. They give orders from inside the correctional institutions, perpetuating contract killings and gang feuds … . These acts exacerbate the difficulties in controlling the level of crime we experienced on a national level,” said Samuda, who has portfolio responsibility for correctional facilities.

New offences

Samuda said the amendment was critical to the integrity of the country's security architecture, which is constantly under threat by criminals.

The legislation proposed a number of new offences, which include having access to the use of or possession of an electronic communication device or computer in a correctional institution; tampering with any electronic communication device or computer by an inmate; and an inmate transmitting, or causing to be transmitted, without authorisation, any data and using an electronic communication device or computer.

A fine not exceeding $3 million, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years, or both, for conviction in the parish court and a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, on conviction in a Circuit Court is being proposed for those found guilty of using a technological device to prejudice the security of an inside or outside of the correctional facility.

For a second or subsequent offence in the parish court, it is proposed that a fine not exceeding $5 million, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, be imposed.

On conviction in the Circuit Court, a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years, or both, is proposed while a second or subsequent offence could see a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years or both a fine and imprisonment.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com