Stop and searchDecember 2, 2011Dear Sir,The main issue around the Stop and Search legislation is that Section 315F of the Criminal Code (introduced in 2005) contains a clause that enables police to Stop & Search with no probably cause. This wording was taken from UK legislation and is similar to wording in UK’s Terrorism Act and the UK’s 1994 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act (S60). The European Human Rights Court in 2010 overturned this type of wording as discriminatory and open to abuse. As detailed by lawyer Mr Martin at the forum on Thursday, this type of wording is only used when a country is at war and/or faced with violent acts of terrorism.We realise that when any type of legislation is put in place, there nearly always are unintended consequences, ie, it is not about the intent but the impact. Even with the best of intentions to solve one problem, another problem arises. Environmental Impact Assessments are done as a matter of course when building, yet when it comes to people’s civil rights we rarely pause to consider that we should perhaps do an Equality Impact Assessment or Social Justice Impact Assessment when we propose legislation.There have been numerous studies which have shown that marijuana use is as common among whites as it is among blacks ... however if you insist on profiling a group you are by default going to end up with many young, black males being criminalised for possession of small amounts of personal use marijuana when they are young. Three past US Presidents have admitted to using marijuana when they were young ... everyone does stupid things when they are young ... but do we criminalise them for the rest of their lives, and prevent them from education overseas and the ability to get medical treatment by being put on the stop list?The 2006 PACE Act also has an S&S element, however the police must have probable cause for suspicion that a criminal act is being committed. This adds a level of protection for an individual’s civil rights.CURB is not against S&S legislation as described under the PACE Act, but we are opposed to Section 315F of the Criminal Code and would like to see it repealed, as it is open for abuse and we believe that the statistics are showing that this is in fact happening. We believe it goes against Bermuda’s Constitution, which so many fought to bring about in 1968.We understand the need for public safety and for the police to be able to carry out their duties in a way that provides reassurance to the public. It has been previously stated that there are only approximately 100+ gang members on the Island; surely a more targeted, investigative approach would be more beneficial than the current blanket S&S policy.We support the police and Commissioner DeSilva in their recent efforts in making so many things, which were previously held confidential, public knowledge on their website, and their intent to improve their data collection so that proper causality can be determined. We also applaud their efforts in their recent outreach to the community, and as Acting Commissioner Jackman said at the forum, their recent awareness of young people’s increasing frustrations at being stopped and/or searched so many times. We would urge them to increase their sensitivity training in this area, so that they become more responsive to the community’s concerns.It is important that the public feel safe, but we cannot continue to make criminals of and/or alienate an entire generation of young, black males. We believe a collaborative response to the concerns around Section 315F of the Criminal Code should begin between the Police, Attorney General, Government and various social justice groups to determine the best course of action with regard to Section 315F. This should not be a political issue, nor about who is right or who is wrong, but should be about what is best for the community.LYNNE WINFIELDPast PresidentCitizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda