EDITORIAL - Legal defence for the police

We dismiss out of hand much of Raymond Wilson's recent fulmination against the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) and the campaign by even senior members of the constabulary to curb the powers of the commission.

However, on at least one issue, Sergeant Wilson, the chairman of the Police Federation - the trade union for rank-and-file cops - has a point that is worthy of serious consideration. It has to do with who should pay his legal bills if a police officer faces criminal indictment or requires legal representation for his action in the conduct of his job.

INDECOM, it is recalled, is the agency that investigates allegations of misbehaviour and abuse of citizens' rights by members of the security forces. It was established because of the high levels of complaints against the police, especially accusations of extrajudicial killings, and the collapse of public confidence in the ability of the law enforcers to investigate themselves.

UNEASY RELATIONSHIP

INDECOM's relationship with the constabulary has been uneasy from the beginning. It has grown even more tense based on a court ruling that affirmed INDECOM's power to arrest and, on its own, prosecute members of the security forces.

This newspaper, as we said previously, believes the logic of the ruling to be unimpeachable. We reject the Police Federation's argument that it constrains the ability of police officers to do their jobs. That should not be the case if they go about their task with professionalism, respect for the law, and observation of rules of engagement.

But we recognise that even disciplined police officers may, at times, be involved in actions that require investigation by INDECOM, for which they believe legal representation is necessary. We concede Sergeant Wilson's observation of the "financial strain" that this may place on a police officer and also note the fact that they, like other citizens, are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE

We are, in that context, not entirely hostile to Sergeant Wilson's argument that police officers who find themselves in conflict with INDECOM for actions during the course of their jobs, which they presumed to be within the law, should expect that their legal costs will be defrayed by their employer.

We are, however, conscious that any wholesale undertaking to finance the legal defence of police officers who abuse citizens' rights during their supposed enforcement of the law might send the signal that such action is condoned by the state. Indeed, police officers, like other citizens, must be fully cognisant that there are consequences for their misbehaviour.

The issue, therefore, is to find the right balance between support for police officers who may be wrongly accused of misbehaviour or believe they require legal representation during a relatively routine investigation, and having those who engage in arbitrary, malicious and illegal behaviour face the full brunt of the law.

It is this issue that is worthy of discussion. Perhaps, among other things, the Government might consider contributing to a legal defence fund, managed by the Police Federation and primarily financed by its members.

It could be, too, that those members who draw on the fund and are proved to have been guilty of a crime be required to pay back the drawdown in excess of their contributions.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.