DEFENCE attorney Peter Champagnie, KC, has thrown his weight behind a call by rights group Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) for legislators to review the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence in the just-passed Firearms Act, warning that recent rulings by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which could become Jamaica’s final appeal court, indicate that body is far from cozy with such sentences.

The Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, which was recently approved in the House of Representatives and is on its way to the Senate, proposes, among other things, a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for individuals convicted of illegal possession of a firearm or stockpiling of three or more firearms or 50 or more rounds of ammunition.

Jamaicans For Justice, in a statement issued on the weekend, said while it “welcomes several of the new provisions in the Bill and stands in full support of a firearm legislation that seeks to address illegal possession of firearm by criminal networks, as well as the misuse of legal firearms against lawful citizens”, Parliament should rethink its position on mandatory minimum sentences “as they may have unintended consequences for those most vulnerable if some exceptions are not included”.

Champagnie, who on several occasions has spoken out about the provision and also addressed the joint select committee of Parliament when it considered the Bill, told the Jamaica Observer on Monday that there is “merit” in JFJ’s concerns.

“I want to make this point emphatically. Presently, the general atmosphere is for Jamaica to become a republic and for us to embrace the CCJ [in its appellate jurisdiction]. Now, I would want to issue a warning or a caution that the most recent cases coming out of the CCJ do not suggest at all that the CCJ is warming to the idea of mandatory minimum sentencing, so we need to be mindful of that,” Champagnie said.

“We also need to be mindful of whittling away the discretion of judges in terms of sentencing. And if it is that it is the intention of Parliament to legislate, I think perhaps the most ideal set of circumstances is where you have certain categories where the discretion is taken into account (legislatively speaking) rather than just taking it away completely. To my mind, it is very dangerous because no two cases are identical, so to categorise and broad-brush it like that is very dangerous,” he argued.

In the meantime, Champagnie said the view expressed by Opposition Leader Mark Golding that there are existing safety valves in other legislation which allow a judge to, after imposing the mandatory sentence, at the same time issue a certificate allowing the accused to mount an appeal should he or she be of the opinion that the sentence is excessive, comes with its own complications.

“The problem with that is that when such a certificate is issued, from the time of the certificate being issued to the time of the Court of Appeal reviewing the mandatory sentence, a year or two might have passed and consequently what you will have is a situation where you have that particular person in custody,” Champagnie pointed out.

He said this will also mean more expenses for the accused who might not have budgeted for more than a trial fee and would now be faced with further legal fees to appeal the sentence.

He, in the meantime, like JFJ, is banking on the Senate when it inspects the Bill to give further thought to the misgivings regarding the provision.

“I am hoping that with the Bill going to the Upper House there will be greater scrutiny to do it. I think that this is clearly the last opportunity for fine-tuning of the Bill and I think it is important for that process to be done with great depth,” he said.

Added Champagnie, “There has to be discretion. And in any event, remember that the prosecution has the right to appeal on sentences. So if, for example, a judge imposes a sentence that, according to the prosecution, there is the feeling that the sentence is woefully inadequate and would shock the public’s conscience, then the prosecutor has the right and can appeal the sentence for it to be increased and therefore I don’t know what utility there is in those circumstances to be having the mandatory minimum.

“Yes, it is true that we need proper gun laws, I agree with that; I think that is impatient of debate. But, we have to be mindful,” he stated.

In the meantime JFJ, in its statement, said while it recognises the efforts taken by the joint select committee and Parliament in balancing the submissions and views of various stakeholders amid the alarmingly high murder levels, it regrets that the core issue of mandatory minimum sentencing was “ignored”.