Dear Editor,
It is happily noted that the Jamaican Bar Association, in a media release regarding the killing of Mario Deane, has added its support to the position of many others who believe that "where police officers breach the rights of individuals, and such breach results in harm or damage suffered by that individual, the officers must be made to pay and not the taxpayers..."
The practice at present, however, has not only been confined to taxpayers having to pay for the harm or damage, but in addition the taxpayer is called upon to pay for the legal fees for police officers charged. The questions I wish to pose are not confined to the Mario Deane case, but indeed in respect to all such instances where "servants of the State's" legal fees have been paid from public funds.
* Isn't there a conflict of interest when the State prosecutes and at the same trial employs counsel to defend? I am, of course, assuming that the reason for the payment of the legal fees by the State for defendants at a criminal trial is that the State has an interest to protect and that an acquittal through legal representation is desirable and in the best interest of the State. If that is the case, why bring the matter to trial at all?
* Who or what body is it that determines or approves the payment of legal fees for "State defendants"?
* And, aren't Jamaican policemen first and foremost Jamaican citizens, and why are they singled out for privileged treatment before the law? Why shouldn't every Jamaican citizen charged with an offence enjoy identical privileges? It certainly cannot be argued that, because at the time of the alleged criminal act, the policeman was acting as an agent of the government that it is only appropriate that the government offer protection by way of paying legal fees of a lawyer of one's own choosing. If that is the guiding principle, no wonder policemen don't appear to be deterred from acting unlawfully while on duty, confident in the knowledge that their defence will be taken care of by the very State responsible for their prosecution. There may very well be some sound legal reason for this practice, and so I beg one of our enlightened lawyers to please advise me of such a reason - at no cost to the government/state, of course.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Why should we pay for their defence?
-->
It is happily noted that the Jamaican Bar Association, in a media release regarding the killing of Mario Deane, has added its support to the position of many others who believe that "where police officers breach the rights of individuals, and such breach results in harm or damage suffered by that individual, the officers must be made to pay and not the taxpayers..."
The practice at present, however, has not only been confined to taxpayers having to pay for the harm or damage, but in addition the taxpayer is called upon to pay for the legal fees for police officers charged. The questions I wish to pose are not confined to the Mario Deane case, but indeed in respect to all such instances where "servants of the State's" legal fees have been paid from public funds.
* Isn't there a conflict of interest when the State prosecutes and at the same trial employs counsel to defend? I am, of course, assuming that the reason for the payment of the legal fees by the State for defendants at a criminal trial is that the State has an interest to protect and that an acquittal through legal representation is desirable and in the best interest of the State. If that is the case, why bring the matter to trial at all?
* Who or what body is it that determines or approves the payment of legal fees for "State defendants"?
* And, aren't Jamaican policemen first and foremost Jamaican citizens, and why are they singled out for privileged treatment before the law? Why shouldn't every Jamaican citizen charged with an offence enjoy identical privileges? It certainly cannot be argued that, because at the time of the alleged criminal act, the policeman was acting as an agent of the government that it is only appropriate that the government offer protection by way of paying legal fees of a lawyer of one's own choosing. If that is the guiding principle, no wonder policemen don't appear to be deterred from acting unlawfully while on duty, confident in the knowledge that their defence will be taken care of by the very State responsible for their prosecution. There may very well be some sound legal reason for this practice, and so I beg one of our enlightened lawyers to please advise me of such a reason - at no cost to the government/state, of course.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Why should we pay for their defence?
-->