‘PDO detainees may seek extra damages over harsh conditions’

Peo­ple de­tained un­der Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­ders (PDOs) could have grounds to seek ad­di­tion­al le­gal re­course if they were held in in­hu­mane con­di­tions, says at­tor­ney Nyree Al­fon­so.

Speak­ing on CNC3’s The Morn­ing Brew pro­gramme yes­ter­day, Al­fon­so said peo­ple who were wrong­ful­ly de­tained un­der a PDO could pur­sue le­gal ac­tion against the State, while the con­di­tions in which they were held could al­so af­fect the dam­ages award­ed.

She was re­spond­ing to ques­tions about re­ports of peo­ple be­ing held in con­di­tions in­clud­ing a 20-foot con­tain­er, with rats and cock­roach­es, no run­ning wa­ter and a clogged toi­let.

Al­fon­so said a claim could arise from wrong­ful im­pris­on­ment where a per­son’s lib­er­ty was un­law­ful­ly tak­en away.

She said the con­di­tions in which a per­son was held, as well as their ac­cess to at­tor­neys and med­ical at­ten­tion, could be con­sid­ered when as­sess­ing a claim.

Al­fon­so said the le­gal­i­ty of the de­ten­tion was a sep­a­rate is­sue from the con­di­tions in which a per­son was held.

“Even if you were right­ly in­car­cer­at­ed, it does not give the State the right to keep you in in­hu­mane con­di­tions,” Al­fon­so said.

She said com­pen­sa­tion would not sim­ply be based on a fig­ure re­quest­ed by a lawyer, but would be as­sessed by the court with ref­er­ence to pre­vi­ous cas­es.

Al­fon­so said lawyers would ex­am­ine ex­ist­ing de­ci­sions in­volv­ing in­car­cer­a­tion and oth­er cas­es when de­ter­min­ing an ap­pro­pri­ate claim.

Turn­ing to the pro­posed Spe­cial Se­cu­ri­ty and Com­mu­ni­ty De­vel­op­ment Mea­sures Bill, com­mon­ly re­ferred to as ZOSO, Al­fon­so said the leg­is­la­tion could work, but changes to its lan­guage would be nec­es­sary.

She said the leg­is­la­tion must strike a bal­ance be­tween the State’s re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­tect cit­i­zens from crime and the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of peo­ple liv­ing in com­mu­ni­ties des­ig­nat­ed un­der the leg­is­la­tion.

Al­fon­so de­scribed ZOSO as a form of “mi­ni state of emer­gency,” giv­ing au­thor­i­ties sim­i­lar pow­ers on a small­er and more tar­get­ed scale.

She said the leg­is­la­tion could be use­ful be­cause it would al­low the Gov­ern­ment to tar­get com­mu­ni­ties ex­pe­ri­enc­ing height­ened crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty with­out im­pos­ing re­stric­tions on the wider pop­u­la­tion.

How­ev­er, Al­fon­so said the leg­is­la­tion must clear­ly set out when and how a per­son’s lib­er­ty could be re­strict­ed and what re­dress would be avail­able.

Al­fon­so al­so stressed that not every­one liv­ing in com­mu­ni­ties af­fect­ed by crime should be treat­ed as crim­i­nals.

— Chester Sam­bra­no