Dear Editor,

Jamaicans have waited patiently on a crime plan from our Government and, frankly, it’s long overdue.

We have witnessed the implementation of several states of emergency (SOEs) and zones of special operations (ZOSOs) masked as the “crime plan in action”. Jamaicans have held their breath, some have even died, since being promised that they can soon sleep with their windows and doors open without fear of criminal elements. Instead, our murder rate continues to soar with Jamaica ending 2021 with a whopping 1,463 murders. No doubt, many of these murders were committed by the use of illegal firearms, and it is against this background that Parliament has sought to get tough on gun crimes by implementing harsher penalties for gun-related offences.

Thus, Parliament recently tabled the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act 2022, which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years on people found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm. Whilst I understand the frustration of the Government and the people of Jamaica who have been subjected to violent gun crimes over the years, I respectfully disagree with this approach of deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

Section 48 of the Jamaican Constitution provides that Parliament may make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of Jamaica. But Parliament’s power to make laws is not unlimited. Where judges are subjected to impose mandatory minimum sentences, it undermines the exercise of their judicial power and is clearly inconsistent with the constitutional principle of separation of powers. I therefore argue that mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional.

The most obvious and negative effect of mandatory minimum sentences is that it stifles the judiciary’s ability to use it discretion when imposing a sentence. Every case has its peculiarities and it is for the sentencing judge, based upon the circumstances of each case and in accordance with the judiciary’s sentencing guidelines, to impose an appropriate punishment for that particular crime. To allow the executive branch to direct the exercise of judicial power directly undermines not only the independence of the judiciary, but also calls into question the confidence we have in our judicial system.

Crucially also, the State has not adequately proven that it has the requisite resources to handle the consequences of imposing mandatory minimum sentences for illegal possession of firearms. With already overcrowded prisons, imposing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes in Jamaica will surely send the prison gates tumbling down.

In 2013 the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Australia found that, while their crime rates had declined, the rate of imprisonment had increased. The committee considered that one factor which contributed to the increase was the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences, which also increased the length of sentences and hence, increased the prison population. This also created the potential increase of the likelihood of reoffending as long periods of incarceration has been shown to promote recidivism.

There is a reason Jamaica established a court specifically for gun-related matters and Gun Court matters are tried by judge alone and not by a jury. The magnitude of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition matters are more than enough to burden our court system. To now impose mandatory minimum sentences would be adding more weight to a broken donkey’s back.

Crime is a social phenomenon and must be addressed at the root and not at the point of sentencing.

The Firearms Act currently prescribes life imprisonment for individuals convicted of illegal possession of firearms, yet we continue to see gun crimes at the heart of Jamaica’s crime problem. I urge this Government to review this approach with an open mind in regard to our constitution, as well as the severe consequences which may follow.

Matthew Hyatt

Attorney-at-Law

Knight, Junor and Samuels

matthew.hyatt_1@hotmail.com