The Tribune

THE hurdles faced in implementing any crackdown in crime are challenging – and in today’s Tribune we see a glimpse of the difficulty, and a hint of the price people may be asked to pay.

First, let us look at the anti-gang legislation being considered by the government.

The trouble, as highlighted by National Security Minister Wayne Munroe, is how do you prove that someone is in a gang? There are no club cards, there is no formal membership – how can you prove membership in a gang rather than simply associating with friends or relatives?

A murder is a murder. A robbery is a robbery. The action itself carries with it a set punishment.

Membership of a gang may not have an action that breaks a law as it stands – and certainly defining the evidence needed to prove that is a difficulty.

Mr Munroe pointed out that current anti-gang legislation has not seen prosecutions take place, and certainly is not impeding gang membership currently.

And something to consider – The Tribune also reports today on a court case that alleges a boy was attacked for refusing to join a gang. That boy was brave enough to stand up to others – how many others may have joined simply to avoid such an assault? Does that make them liable for prosecution in a court of law?

Meanwhile, Mr Munroe also pointed out the price we ought to be prepared to pay – namely being locked up for up to 48 hours on suspicion if we happen to be wrongly identified by a camera.

Being locked up for two days is described by Mr Munroe as being “inconvenienced”.

He said “being arrested on suspicion and being held up to 48 hours is part of the price we pay for living in a free, democratic, orderly society, and so this is what the prime minister talks about when he talks about potential inconvenience”.

Mr Munroe, it should be noted, was previously dismissive of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s report which found that detainees are often held for significantly longer than 48 hours without extensions being granted by a court.

He said at the time: “They speak about persons being detained for more than five days. Well, anybody who does the math would know that if you are charged on a Friday having been in custody for five days, there is no court to bring you before on a Saturday or a Sunday, and so you will end up being in custody for seven days.”

He also dismissed other aspects of the report because the group spoke to detainees and criminals as part of their work, with Mr Munroe urging people to trust law enforcement and not the “adverse” report findings, adding: “When you decide whose account to believe, I just want you to take into account that the prisoner, the criminal, would always like you to silence your watchdog.”

A combination of potentially increasing the likelihood of detentions combined with a dismissive attitude both to the consequences of such occurrences and the refusal to accept concerns raised by international bodies is a dangerous mix.

Successive governments have already faced numerous legal challenges over unlawful detentions, and have not fared well in the courts in response.

This is a situation where we must tread very carefully. Human rights are just that, rights, and not to be trampled with impunity.

Prosecutions require evidence for courts to decide. And courts can decide on detentions too. Detentions cannot be arbitrary, and those that are carried out unlawfully will find a legal remedy awaits.