Jamaica
Tools
Tasks
Users
Scope
Training
Regulation
Cases
Insights
Information uploaded as at September 2026
AT A GLANCE
In Jamaica, AI is beginning to be used by law enforcement and the courts to improve efficiency. The Jamaica Constabulary Force introduced Constable Smart in June 2025, a conversational AI assistant that can answer legal questions, take statements, and log reports, with plans for automatic licence-plate recognition. The Force also uses Amber Connect’s vehicle-tracking system to monitor patrols, while the Ministry of National Security’s JamaicaEye programme operates over 850 CCTV cameras with AI-enabled facial recognition, licence-plate reading, and crowd counting. Jampol Stats overlays historical crime data on maps to guide resource deployment. In the courts, an Integrated Electronic Case Management System is being developed to digitise filing and case management, with aspirations to integrate AI for submissions and scheduling. Defence counsel may use private platforms such as vLex’s Vincent AI for legal research.
As at September 2026, Jamaica has no AI-specific statute. Governance relies on the Data Protection Act 2020, Cybercrimes Act 2015 (amended in 2026), Electronic Transactions Act 2006, Evidence Act, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 2011. The Data Protection Act allows objections to solely automated decisions and sets data-protection principles. The Cybercrimes Act addresses malicious communications and non-consensual intimate images but not deepfakes expressly. Electronic and computer-generated evidence is governed by reliability and integrity requirements. In the courts specifically, Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 fills much of this gap. In the absence of national legislation, it operates as the principal framework governing AI in the courts. The Canons of Professional Ethics do not yet mention AI expressly, but duties on accuracy, honesty, and competence apply. In 2024, the National AI Task Force recommended a cohesive national AI framework and regulator, but comprehensive policy remains under development.
Use
Law enforcement
Jamaican law enforcement agencies, primarily the country’s police force or ‘Jamaica Constabulary Force’ (JCF), are beginning to use AI-assisted technologies.
Operational support
In June 2025, Constable Smart was introduced to Jamaican law enforcement operations as a conversational AI system designed to support administrative and public-facing duties. The tool was developed by Amber Group. Among its functions, Constable Smart acts as a virtual officer, greeting users with: ‘I am Constable Smart, your law enforcement AI assistant. How can I help you today?’. It can reportedly facilitate voice-based interactions in English, Jamaican Patois, and other languages using advanced speech synthesis, and can respond to legal and procedural questions, take official statements, and automatically log reports into the JCF’s database. Its capabilities reportedly include:
- Soliciting answers to, for example, whether stealing a car constitutes a crime, what the purpose of the Jamaica Constabulary Force is, and how many points are needed to suspend a licence;
- Accessing cameras that can pick up licence plates, identify the driver, and issue tickets automatically; and
- Taking police statements.
When you go to a police station to give a report, you sit down in front of somebody who may be having a bad day from home and there are books to be written. Imagine now, all of our police stations in Jamaica, when you walk in there will be an AI agent waiting for you. You’d go up to it, talk to it, file your report, and it will ask you questions and even interrogate and ask you the right questions that it collects all the data it needs about a situation.
Generative AI will enhance efficiency and streamline court operations, it will simplify the preparation of legal submissions, reduce clerical delays, ease the filing process, and support self-represented litigants. Court staff will also use AI to improve document management, case scheduling, and information retrieval—ensuring proceedings are faster, more accurate, and transparent.
Defence
Legal research, analysis and drafting support
As at September 2026, there are no reported cases of defence counsel in Jamaica making use of AI. Defence counsel may, however, use legal databases including AI features to facilitate research and drafting. For example, vLex covers Jamaican case law and legislation through its CariLaw and UWI partnership. It contains a Vincent AI feature for Jamaica and sixteen other Caribbean jurisdictions, serving as a chatbot that accepts complex prompts written in natural language and delivers AI-generated, tailored responses in natural language. The main feature of Vincent AI is the handling of research questions. Among other functions, it can also summarise, compare, analyse and review legal documents, construct legal arguments, transcribe audio and video, and analyse depositions, including the suggestion of questions.
Victims
In Jamaica, victims have indirect legal standing in criminal proceedings. Prosecutions are conducted on behalf of the Crown, by the ODPP under section 94(3) of the Jamaican Constitution. This section also empowers the ODPP to take over or discontinue proceedings instituted by any other person. The victim’s role is that of complainant and witness. Participation rights are statutory but consultative: section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Plea Negotiations and Agreements) Act entitles the victim to make written representations before a plea agreement is concluded, to be informed of its substance and reasons, and to be present when the court considers it, with section 14 requiring those representations to be entered on the record. Section 42H(b) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act makes the offence’s impact on the victim a mandatory sentencing consideration.
Direct standing arises through a private prosecution at common law, which for indictable offences requires the ODPP’s consent under section 2(2) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act and remains subject to takeover or discontinuance. A statutory Victim’s Charter, aimed at giving crime and abuse victims in Jamaica a stronger voice in the legal process and ensuring that their perspectives are considered in addressing offenders, has been announced. However, as at September 2026, it is not yet in force.
As at September 2026, there are no reported cases of victims in Jamaica making use of AI.
TRAINING
As at September 2026, there is no systematic or mandatory training programme for law enforcement agencies, lawyers, or judges and court staff on the responsible use of AI. In June 2026, however, the Government of Jamaica announced plans to introduce mandatory AI training for all public-sector employees across ministries, departments, and agencies. The programme is intended to improve public officials’ understanding of AI and its potential applications, while promoting greater efficiency across government.
The following international AI training programmes are also available to legal professionals in Jamaica, but there is no evidence that any official Jamaican training body has formally endorsed, adopted or facilitated participation in these programmes:
- In November 2023, UNESCO delivered a training programme for judges from Latin America and the Caribbean on AI and the rule of law. This was organised jointly with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and supported by the European Union. More than forty judges and professors from judicial training institutions participated. The programme addressed topics including algorithmic bias, the impact of AI on fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial and due process, and relevant regulatory measures and case law.
- In March 2026, UNESCO and the Caribbean Court of Justice (‘CCJ’) jointly hosted a high-level seminar on AI, freedom of expression, and the rule of law. The event brought together CCJ judges, court staff, and legal experts from across the Caribbean. The training was based on UNESCO’s Global Toolkit on AI and the Rule of Law for the Judiciary and included sessions on the use of AI in judicial processes and its implications for human rights, with guidance from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.
REGULATION
As at September 2026, Jamaica does not have any AI-specific statutes in force, though the National AI Task Force has published National Artificial Intelligence Policy Recommendations. Existing instruments, including the Data Protection Act 2020, the Cybercrimes Act 2015, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 2011, and soft-law instruments such as UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, provide the foundation on which Jamaica’s emerging AI governance framework is being built.
AI Regulations
National AI Policy Recommendations (2024)
The 2024 National AI Policy Recommendations represent one of the first major steps towards Jamaica’s comprehensive national framework for AI. These recommendations were published by Jamaica’s National AI Task Force, which was established in 2023 as a multidisciplinary team with experts from private sector, public institutions, and academia, tasked with making recommendations for Jamaica to ‘harness the potential of [AI] as a catalyst for innovation, economic growth, and enhanced societal well-being’.
The Recommendations are based upon principles of ethical development, deployment, and use of AI, drawn from industry standards and normative instruments such as UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021). In particular, the Recommendations note that service providers using AI must ensure that users understand the limitations of AI; that organisations using AI must be transparent about the processes underlying these systems; that organisations cannot delegate their responsibility for the ethical and proper execution of tasks to AI; and that organisations deploying AI systems must ensure that their operations do not inadvertently breach the Data Protection Act 2020 (see ‘Data protection legislation’ below).
The AI Policy Recommendations provide actionable recommendations regarding the implementation of AI but ‘also seek[] to inspire a collective vision among all Jamaicans for an AI-empowered future.’ In particular, the Recommendations:
- Identify Jamaica’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in relation to AI. Despite gaps in digital infrastructure, dependence on foreign technology providers, and a shortage of specialised AI talent, the recommendations note the government’s commitment to digital transformation, a young population, and a growing tech ecosystem. The Recommendations conclude that AI can drive significant economic growth and support sustainable development in Jamaica.
- Set out specific measures across nine topics, together with an action plan organised into short, medium, and long-term goals. These topics are: AI for Innovation and Economic Growth; Education and Workforce Development; Public Awareness and Sensitisation; AI Infrastructure and Technology; International Cooperation in AI; Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for AI; Government and Industry Collaboration; Ethical Foundations of AI; and Cohesive AI Framework.
- Propose the creation of a cohesive AI framework outlining how AI technologies can be adopted, scaled, and regulated across industries and the public sector, including guidance on integration into public services, businesses, and infrastructure.
- Recognise that AI raises new legal and regulatory challenges, particularly around data privacy, security, IP, and ethical use. The Recommendations warn that Jamaica lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework to address these issues, which could slow AI adoption and raise concerns about impacts on human rights. To strengthen the legal and regulatory framework for ethical AI, the Recommendations suggest that Jamaica establish interim guidelines on AI ethics and data privacy; ensure the legal system is equipped to deal with AI-related disputes; create a national AI regulatory framework covering liability, bias, and transparency; and establish a national AI regulatory authority responsible for enforcing ethical standards and ensuring compliance with international best practice.
Guidelines for practitioners
Practice Direction No. 1 (2025)
The judiciary has taken proactive steps to regulate AI use in court proceedings. Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025, issued by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes in September 2025, concerns the use of generative AI in proceedings before the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica, the Revenue Court, the High Court, and the Circuit Divisions of the Gun Court. The Practice Direction defines AI as systems that autonomously or partly autonomously process data using algorithms or statistical models to generate content, decisions, recommendations, or predictions, and it defines Generative AI (‘GenAI’) as tools that produce text, images, code, or other content from large datasets and patterns, including large language models. Key features of this Practice Direction include:
- Any court document prepared wholly or partly with GenAI must be thoroughly reviewed, verified, and approved by the submitting party or attorney, and must be fact-checked and legally accurate, contain no fabricated case law or misapplied authorities, and avoid the inclusion of confidential or privileged material on unsecured platforms.
- Attorneys and parties must not rely solely on GenAI for legal analysis or citation and must independently confirm the validity of all authorities before relying on them in submissions to the court.
- GenAI must not be used to draft or alter affidavits or witness statements that are intended to reflect a person’s direct knowledge, belief, or opinion, nor to generate expert evidence or reports purporting to be from an independent person.
- GenAI must not be used to create or modify material intended as evidence unless the court expressly authorises such use, nor to generate documents purporting to be original documents, nor to generate images unless expressly requested, explained, and approved by the court.
- GenAI must not be used to generate invented case law, statutes, legal principles, facts, or any other unverified information, and must not be used to generate images or avatars that falsely present a likeness of a person for virtual hearings before judicial officers.
- Users of GenAI must exercise due diligence in understanding the tool’s capabilities and limitations, ensuring the confidentiality of any data processed, and maintaining professional responsibility for all materials filed with the court.
- The use of GenAI does not relieve parties or attorneys of their duty of candour and diligence to the court, and they remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of all submissions.
- Where any part of a submitted document was prepared using GenAI, the party or attorney must include a declaration in the prescribed form set out in the Appendix, and the court may order further particulars about how GenAI was used in preparing the materials.
- If GenAI-generated information is found to be inaccurate, fictitious, or misleading, the court may refuse to admit the document, disregard the submission in whole or in part, and/or make costs orders or impose other sanctions.
- Non-compliance with the Practice Direction may also amount to contempt of court, trigger referral of attorneys to the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council, or lead to other just sanctions as the court sees fit.
- Judicial officers may consider AI-assisted materials only to the extent that they meet the court’s evidentiary and procedural standards, and the Practice Direction is subject to periodic review to reflect developments in AI and practical experience in its use.
- The Appendix provides a required declaration form in which the user must name the GenAI tool and version used, confirm which portions of the document were AI-assisted, and certify that all information, citations, and representations have been independently verified.
Legal Profession Act (1972)
In Jamaica, the Legal Profession Act regulates the practice and enrolment of legal practitioners. The Act also establishes the General Legal Council (‘GLC’), including the Disciplinary Committee, and empowers the GLC to set ethical rules for professional conduct and ethics. As at September 2026, the Legal Profession (Canons of Professional Ethics) Rules do not have specific legislative guidelines or ethical rules addressing the use of AI by lawyers.
Many of the existing ethical rules and duties are nonetheless relevant to the use or misuse of AI tools by legal practitioners. These duties and rules include failure to understand the limitations of AI tools, failure to verify, blind reliance, and a requirement that lawyers must not mislead the court or cite false authorities. Examples of provisions include:
- Not ‘knowingly make a false statement of law or fact’ (Canon V, s. o)
- Not ‘knowingly use false evidence or participate in creating or using evidence known to be false’ (Canon V, s. m)
- Not act with ‘inexcusable or deplorable negligence or neglect’ (Canon IV, s. s).
- Generally, shall act ‘in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal system and the legal profession.’ (Canon VIII, s. b).
Criminal procedure rules
The Electronic Transactions Act (2006)
Jamaica’s Electronic Transactions Act (2006) does not explicitly reference or address the use of AI. However, one of its objectives is to ‘establish uniformity of legal rules and standards regarding the authentication and integrity of electronic documents’. Section 12(1) states:
‘[i]n any legal proceedings, nothing in the rules of evidence shall apply so as to deny the admissibility in evidence of any information electronically – solely on the ground that the information is given electronically or if the information is the best evidence that the person adducing it could reasonably be expected to obtain, on the ground that the information is not in its original form.’
In assessing the evidential weight of information given electronically, the Act instructs that consideration be given to:
- 12(2)(a): The reliability of the manner in which the evidence was generated, stored or communicated;
- 12(2)(b): The reliability of the manner in which the integrity of the information was maintained;
- 12(2)(c): The manner in which the originator was identified; and
- 12(2)(d): Any other relevant factor.
The Act states that this section shall not affect the application of sections 31G or 31H of the Evidence Act, which relate to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence.
The Evidence Act (1843)
Jamaica’s Evidence Act does not reference or specifically address AI, but it includes provisions regarding the admissibility of computer evidence, and its rules may be applicable to attempts to bring AI-authenticated, AI-altered, or AI-generated evidence into the courtroom.
Section 31G sets the evidentiary rules for the admissibility of computer evidence, providing that a computer-generated document shall not be admissible as evidence unless it is shown that: (a) there are no reasonable grounds for believing the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer; and (b) at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents.
Deepfakes
Jamaica does not currently have any legislation or regulations that address AI-generated media or deepfakes, including obligations to disclose synthetic content. However, the threat posed by AI-generated media and deepfakes has been publicly noted by officials who have called for urgent regulations and safeguards.
As at September 2026, the tampering of evidence through deepfakes would be treated as a common-law offence of perverting the course of justice. This carries financial penalties as well as the potential for up to three years imprisonment.
Any use of AI in evidence would also likely need to be disclosed. Disclosure, in Jamaica, is defined as ‘the duty of the Prosecution to provide the accused with copies of, or access to, any material held by the Prosecution which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the Prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused, regardless of whether that material will be introduced as evidence’ (ODPP’s Disclosure Protocol).
Data protection legislation
The Data Protection Act (2020)
The Data Protection Act (‘DPA’) is Jamaica’s comprehensive data-privacy statute. Its purpose is to protect the personal data and privacy of individuals, including by regulating the storage, collection, and use of such data. While the DPA does not specifically address protections against AI, there are various provisions that safeguard personal data and privacy against potential AI misuse.
Section 12(2) states that ‘[a]n individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to the data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision to which this section applies is based solely on the processing, by automatic means, of personal data in respect of the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to the data subject.’
Additionally, there are eight data protection standards listed in the DPA, which may be relevant to the development and use of AI in criminal justice:
- Lawfulness and fairness: Personal data must be processed lawfully and fairly, and only where at least one statutory condition for processing is satisfied (such as consent, legal obligation, contract, vital interests, public interest, or legitimate interests); stricter additional conditions apply to sensitive personal data. (section 22)
- Purpose limitation: Personal data must be processed only for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and must not be further processed in a way that is incompatible with those purposes. (section 25)
- Data minimisation: Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which it is processed. (section 26)
- Accuracy: Personal data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; reasonable steps must be taken to erase or rectify inaccurate data without delay. (section 27)
- Storage limitation: Personal data must not be kept for longer than is necessary for the purpose or purposes for which it is processed. (section 28)
- Respect for data subject rights: Personal data must be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under the Act (including rights of access, rectification, objection and rights relating to automated decision-making). (section 29)
- Security, integrity and confidentiality: Appropriate technical and organisational measures must be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage to personal data. (section 30)
- Cross-border transfer restriction: Personal data must not be transferred to a country or territory outside Jamaica unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects, or a specified exception/derogation applies. (section 31)
Cybersecurity laws
The Cybercrimes Act (2015)
The Cybercrimes Act, first adopted in 2015, establishes legal frameworks to combat cybercrime in Jamaica, addressing various offenses related to the misuse of computer systems and data. The Act, which includes offences for unauthorised access and computer-related forgery or fraud, makes no reference to AI, but its provisions may criminalise conduct relating to AI. Section 9, for example, provides that a person commits an offence if they: (a) use a computer to send another person data that is obscene, threatening, or menacing; and (b) intend to harass someone, or to cause (or make them fear) harm to a person or property.
In 2024, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Andrea Martin-Swaby observed that there is currently no criminal liability for disseminating material which constitutes deepfake or AI-generated misrepresentation of facts. She explained, however, that currently existing civil and criminal remedies may be available to address harm caused by AI generated media or deepfakes.
We believe that criminal liability may only arise if the material fits within the parameters of Section 9 of the Cybercrimes Act, where it is obscene, threatening in nature, and sent with a view to cause harm.
[W]e have to be very real how we deal with issues like this, because the House must recognise that the Cybercrimes Act is technologically neutral. That neutrality is very much intentional. It allows prosecution of offences under the Act, irrespective of the technology used, the platform involved or the method of manipulation. [. . .] The absence of a specific reference to AI is, therefore, not fatal. What matters is whether the required elements of the offence are present, whether an intimate image is created or generated, and whether fraudulent manipulation of data has occurred through input, alteration, deletion, suppression, or other means contemplated by the app.
