The thin line between complaint and injustice

Aug 04, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Years ago, a complaint was made about a missing minor. It was presumed that the missing minor was encouraged to leave her home by a friend and therefore it was presumed that she was being accommodated at the house of the friend’s mother. A report was made to the police but they did not move to seek a warrant for the search of the friend’s mother’s house because they simply did not have credible and sufficient evidence that indeed the missing minor was there.

The police did not move in and in fact, it was later found out that the missing minor was not being held there at all but somewhere else. Had the police acted impulsively and based solely on the suspicion of the parents of the missing minor, they could have found themselves facing a lawsuit. This is why the police must always act upon reasonable grounds, especially in cases of cyberbullying where there is no direct link between a suspect and the crime.

The issue of cyberbullying has grown significantly, prompting victims and concerned parties to seek redress through law enforcement channels. However, this recourse raises critical questions about the thresholds for police action when a suspect is named by a complainant.

At the heart of this dilemma lies the balance between protecting potential victims and safeguarding the fundamental rights of the accused. The question that arises is: What constitutes reasonable grounds for arresting and questioning someone named by a complainant, and how does this action intersect with the preservation of human rights?

In many legal systems, the concept of “reasonable grounds” or “reasonable suspicion” forms the basis for police intervention, including arrest and questioning. Reasonable grounds imply that there must be sufficient evidence or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the suspect is involved. This standard is not a mere hunch or uncorroborated accusation but requires objective and credible evidence.

However, the process of determining what constitutes reasonable grounds involves assessing the reliability of the information provided, the credibility of the informant, and the context in which the allegations are made. For instance, if a complainant reports an incident of cyberbullying and provides evidence such as threatening messages, screenshots, or digital footprints linking the suspect to the crime, the police may consider these factors as constituting reasonable grounds for further investigation. But what if no such evidence is provided? Should the police act on the mere suspicion of the complainant?

One of the critical concerns in such cases is the potential for misuse of the complaint mechanism. While it is essential to take allegations seriously, especially in sensitive cases like cyberbullying, there is also a risk of false accusations or malicious reporting. Anyone can walk into a police station, make a report of an offense, and name a suspect. However, the police must exercise caution and diligence before taking any action that could impact the accused’s life and reputation.

The police must distinguish between genuine reports and those driven by ulterior motives. This task is challenging, as it involves evaluating the complainant’s intentions and the credibility of their claims. A complainant’s subjective belief that a crime has occurred is not sufficient; there must be an objective basis for the police to act. Also, the threshold for suspicion should be set high enough to prevent arbitrary or unjust actions but low enough to allow for the investigation of legitimate concerns.

The issue of reasonable grounds for arrest and questioning in cases initiated by complainants is a delicate one, requiring a careful balance between protecting potential victims and safeguarding the rights of the accused. While it is crucial to take allegations seriously, especially in sensitive cases like cyberbullying, the police must also exercise caution and ensure that their actions are based on credible evidence and objective grounds.

Arresting and questioning someone based solely on a complaint without sufficient evidence can have severe implications for the individual’s human rights. Arbitrary arrests, driven by unsubstantiated claims, can lead to a cascade of negative consequences for the accused.

Firstly, the mere act of being arrested or questioned can tarnish an individual’s reputation, even if they are later found innocent. In the age of social media and rapid information dissemination, news of an arrest can spread quickly, leading to public shaming, loss of employment, and social ostracism. These consequences are often irreversible and can have a lasting impact on the individual’s life.

Secondly, the process of being arrested and questioned can be traumatic and stressful. It can disrupt the individual’s personal and professional life, causing emotional distress. In some cases, individuals may feel pressured to confess to crimes they did not commit, simply to avoid prolonged detention or legal battles.

To protect individuals’ rights while ensuring justice, the police and legal system must adhere to strict protocols and standards when handling complaints and allegations. The police should conduct thorough preliminary investigations before making any arrests or questioning suspects. This process may include gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and verifying the credibility of the complainant’s claims.

In the protocols there should be clear guidelines outlining what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion. These guidelines should be transparent and publicly accessible, ensuring that the public understands the criteria used by the police to make decisions. This transparency can help build trust in the legal system and prevent perceptions of bias or arbitrariness.

Individuals accused of crimes should have access to legal representation and be informed of their rights throughout the process. This access ensures that they can defend themselves adequately and that their rights are protected at every stage of the investigation.

By adhering to strict protocols, conducting thorough investigations, justice can be upheld for all parties involved. In doing so, we can create a society where both victims and the accused receive fair and equitable treatment under the law.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• complaint, credible, injustice, minor, Peeping Tom

---