Dear Editor
Recently, Hon. Robeson Benn, M.P. Minister of Home Affairs piloted Bill No.8 of 2021 – POLICE (AMENDMENT) Bill. 2021 in Parliament. According to the Bill, “less-lethal weapons” include – (a) nightsticks, batons and clubs; (b) chemicals irritants, including a pepper spray or tear gas; (C) conducted electrical weapons, including a taser or stun gun; (d) kinetic impact projectiles, including rubber coated bullets; or (e) a water cannon. The Explanatory Memorandum states, “The purpose of this amendment is to expressly provide the type of less – lethal weapons that may be issued to the Police Force for use in the discharge of their functions under the Act. The use of these arms facilitates less lethal confrontational measures by law enforcement in an effort to reduce fatalities.” The Hon. Minister was supported in principle by former Public Security Minister, Khemraj Ramjattan who is now an Opposition Member of Parliament.
Is it that the government is looking into the area of less lethal force in order to reduce fatalities? Interestingly, according to Amnesty International, since 2001 at least 500 persons in the United States of America died after being shocked with tasers and stun guns during arrest and while in jail. 90% were unarmed. A 2012 study revealed that shock delivered to the chest by a Taser can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death.
The vexing question is, should members of the GPF use tasers, stun guns, pepper sprays, kinetic impact projectiles, including rubber coated bullets and or chemicals irritants in the execution of their duties when facing conflicts and confrontations?
Use of force including lethal and less lethal force has always been difficult if not controversial. It is a reactive process. Police react to a suspect’s actions. It is sometimes a necessary part of the job. It has come into vogue. The police are caught in a quagmire. Damned if they use lethal or less – lethal force, damned if they don’t.
In the United States of America the landmark case in use of force is Graham vs Connor (1989) in which the Court held: “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgement – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation… “ Use of force expert Nowicki (2002) explains, “The standard, according to this decision is the ‘reasonable objective officer.’” It is applicable to Guyana.
The police must use only the level and amount of force reasonably necessary to achieve a law enforcement objective, but determining what is reasonable is highly subjective. Many different types of a force option continuum exist.
Enacting legislation to deal with less lethal force is like putting a band-aid on a festering sore. Other pertinent measures must kick in. Piecemeal effort will only produce piecemeal results. What is required is a holistic approach to the use of both lethal and less lethal force. Over the years there have been too many cases where members of the GPF unlawfully used lethal and less lethal force which resulted in the unlawful death and serious injuries to members of the public. Here is one of the burning cases. On September 15, 2021, the police SWAT Squad travelled to Dartmouth, Region 2. Using lethal force they shot and killed businessman, Orin Boston in his bed in the presence of his now bereaved wife Feona Boston. There is a thick wall of silence from the police about the status of that investigation. Perhaps, the investigation cannot be properly completed because legally there is no Police Complaints Authority in place to supervise the investigation of the unlawful killing which is a requirement under section 4 (1) of the Police Complaints Authority Act Chapter 17:02. The contract for the Authority expired and has not been renewed despite the Authority having applied for a renewal. The investigation appears to have been put down sine die. Wow.
To give life to the Bill the police must conduct meticulous training for all its ranks in respect to the use of force – lethal and less – force; internalise, conceptualise, design, develop and implement a Standard Operational Procedure for the enforcement of the Bill alluded to above, unlike what was not done with the SWAT Squad; state the purpose of the SOP, describe the prohibited activities or conduct and outline the responsibilities of the other ranks and supervisors. In addition it must be tactically sound, administratively feasible and allow for contingencies and be enshrined in the Guyana Police Force Standing Orders. It is a sine qua non. The police must learn from their act of omission in relation to the SWAT Squad operating without a known written SOP.
Moving to another very important issue, the guiding principles in the use of firearm – “When you may fire,” Force Orders 33/69 which has remained pristine for over fifty years although crime and the modus of criminals activities have evolved. A Police Standing Orders Review Team under the astute leadership of retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Paul Slowe which was commissioned by Commissioner of Police, Leslie James in the presence of his Executive Leadership Team had revised that Standing Orders after utilising their combined over one hundred and seventy five years of experience, speaking with use of force experts and looking at international best practices. The team submitted the revised Standing Orders to the police for vetting with a view of implementation. This very important reviewed Standing Order was apparently dashed under the police, “No Action Red Carpet.” I urge the police to raise up that carpet, retrieve that revised Standing Order and implement it. Adoption and compliance with that revised Standing Order will greatly influence the police to be professional and safer in their use of lethal and less lethal force. The members of the Review Team will not claim property rights. It is free public interest.
Yours respectfully,
Clinton Conway
Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Retired)