AFTER an almost hour-long stand-off with the police in which a cop was shot, Dane Johnson, an ex-member of Jamaica Defence Force, escaped prison time on Friday when a judge imposed a guardianship order on him following an impassioned plea by his attorney and testimony from a psychiatrist.

The stand-off occurred at Johnson’s house in St Catherine on November 2, 2021 after police received calls of a man firing bullets at neighbours in Cumberland Meadows.

It was reported by the police that Johnson ran into his house and locked himself inside with his daughter, refusing to comply with the cops’ requests for him to surrender.

During the encounter Johnson used his licensed firearm to exchange bullets with the cops, resulting in one policeman and Johnson being shot.

Police report that he only surrendered when his wife arrived on the scene and spoke to him.

Johnson was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, wounding with intent, and seven counts of shooting with intent. He was facing a life sentence for his actions.

When Johnson last appeared in the Gun Court his attorneys, King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie and Samoi Campbell, called a psychiatrist who testified that at the time of the shooting Johnson was struggling with mental illness.

Before the verdict was handed down the judge had three sentencing options — imprisonment, probation order with supervision, or a guardianship order.

Champagnie advanced arguments as to why a guardianship order was most appropriate to hand down to his client, and told the court Johnson’s mother was prepared and willing to be his guardian.

He also said that arrangements were being made for Johnson to be supervised periodically by officials in the mental health field.

Champagnie, in an impassioned appeal for his client not to be sent to prison, urged the court to avoid treating Johnson as other people with mental disability are treated, wherein they are locked up and the key “thrown away”.

Speaking with Jamaica Observer on Friday, Champagnie appealed to relatives of people with mental illness who get in trouble with the law, not to abandon them.

“My appeal is that families should not abandon loved ones and create a burden on the State. In this particular case I was fortunate, and my client was fortunate to have that kind of support system and to utilise the provisions of the law which allow for this kind of option to be exercised, once the court is satisfied with the evidence,” he said.

“Fortunately you had a situation where family members were more than willing to rally around this person and where the court could exercise its option under the Criminal Justice Administration Act and allow for this kind of discretion to be exercised.

“In many, many instances you don’t have the family support. Without the family support I am not sure that the result would be what it was today. When you abandon them you leave them in a situation where the courts don’t have any alternative option but to just remand them at the governor general’s pleasure, or indefinitely,” he said.

“I think that the issue of mental health and persons who are afflicted with such issues and become involved in the criminal law, it is my view that the treatment of those people are unjust — and what adds to this is the fact that we don’t have the institutional structures in place to adequately deal with those issues. The traditional view has been essentially to lock them up and throw away the key. You find that you have instances where there are reports of people who have been in custody for 20 and 30 years and so on. It is not just from the criminal justice system where you have shortcomings but you also have it in relation to family members who do not take responsibility and [instead] leave it up to the State to deal with their family members who are ill,” he said.