Bringing ankle bracelets to heel

COMMISSIONER of Police Erla Harewood-Christopher’s call for the more widespread use of electronic monitoring devices is an idea whose time has come.

In a message to the nation on Friday, the commissioner said “innovative and unprecedented legislative interventions” are now warranted, and suggested ankle bracelets should be used for cases involving firearms and violence.

Opposition MP Dr Roodal Moonilal is correct in saying there is already legislation authorising the use of these devices. But the fact that it is already law is something that favours the commissioner’s proposal, and does not go against her call.

Not only is this an idea whose time has come, it is one that is on solid footing.

The Administration of Justice (Electronic Monitoring) Act 2012 already empowers judges to order the use of ankle devices. However, the law in the past limited the types of cases in which this could occur, with domestic-abuse cases being the primary target.

Previously, other violent offences, including those for which bail could not be granted, were removed from the ambit of the law, such as murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent, kidnapping, drug trafficking and the unlawful possession of firearms.

However, the legislative environment has since moved on. Some of these offences are now bailable, owing to the lapsing of sunset clauses or common-law rulings.

At the same time, however, we have seen little evidence to suggest ankle bracelets are being used more widely. An update by Minister of National Security Fitzgerald Hinds last year suggested the court had imposed only 38 bracelets on individuals up to that point.

Two months ago, officials from the ministry told a parliamentary committee the Electronic Monitoring Unit had acquired just 300 devices between 2021 and 2023.

Given that murders alone for this year have already surpassed that number, this represents a drop in the bucket.

The commissioner’s call, therefore, reflects the need for a substantial widening in the use of the existing law by stakeholders.

To bring this about, there should be more staffing at the unit and in probation offices as well as more devices. We strongly suggest Cabinet consider this, alongside any legislative emendations deemed necessary.

In a situation in which jails are overcrowded and accused people are left to languish for decades, the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative is not only a tantalising option. It is a necessity.

This is especially so given that first-time offenders are more likely to become repeat offenders once they are exposed to life behind bars and the networks that flourish therein.

The more widespread use of ankle bracelets is no silver bullet. But it could be a step in the right direction.