A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems remedies and limiting function creep, that provides a variety of arguments useful for challenging identity systems. JULIAN J. ROBINSON V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA 16. The third case is Julian J. Robinson v. The Attorney General of Jamaica from 2019.11 The proposed Jamaican identity system would have required the collection of biometric data from all Jamaican citizens and those residing in Jamaica for more than six months.12 Those individuals would then be issued a unique identity number, with verification of the number required for the provision of any public goods or services and even some private services.13 The Jamaican judgment was delivered in three opinions written by Justice Sykes, Justice Batts, and Justice Palmer Hamilton, with the Jamaican Supreme Court ultimately rejecting a proposed identity system. The court found the dissent from Aadhaar particularly persuasive, using its reasoning to find that privacy rights violations implicated by a compulsory identity scheme could not be justified by the system’s potential benefits.14 The court also found that the Jamaican system was unconstitutional because of a violation of the right to equality, as foreign nationals in Jamaica would not be subject to the identity system requirements.15 11 Julian J. Robinson v. The Attorney General of Jamaica, Claim No. 2018HCV01788 (2019). 12 Julian J. Robinson, ¶ 31. 13 Julian J. Robinson, ¶ 31. 14 Julian J. Robinson, ¶ 247 (B)(52). 15 Julian J. Robinson, ¶ 247 (A)(16). 12