Defence attorneys have been placed on alert to pull their services from the island’s courts for an entire week, starting next Monday, a move that will deal a significant blow to the Michaelmas term which began just over a week ago.

The lawyers arrived at the decision after a meeting on Thursday with Justice Minister Delroy Chuck which they say failed to produce any meaningful plans to reform the 2022 Firearms Act.

The emergency meeting was called following Wednesday’s ‘silent protest’ outside the Supreme Court on King Street in downtown Kingston, where members of the Jamaican Bar Association, the Advocates Association in collaboration with Bar associations across the island, armed with placards, demanded that their concerns about the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022 and its impact on “justice, due process and the rule of law” be taken on board for reform.

Some hours later, Chuck indicated that he would be meeting with representatives of the bodies to hear their concerns.

However, following those discussions, defence attorney Tamika Harris, a member of the Bar Council of the Jamaican Bar Association and chair of its Criminal Practice and Procedure Subcommittee, who was a key figure behind the protest, told the Jamaica Observer that the meeting amounted to little less than an exercise in futility.

“The minister could not give a timeline as to when anything would be taken to the legislature, and he has asked for the discussion to be placed in writing but before [the Act was passed] the Bar Association… made a submission to Parliament. We are not asking for anything different, so it’s not like our argument is new,” Harris stated.

“The meeting, in my mind, was an opportunity for us to say the same things we have already said, but we have not gotten any response from the minister to, for example, say when he will go to Parliament [with proposed amendments]. I know everything takes time, but I did not get any idea of a plan to put in action. So the minister didn’t confirm that he was going to put a plan in action, so there is no resolution,” Harris declared.

As such, she said attorneys will be moving to action the next stage of their protest.

“He was very courteous and he listened. He expressed that he understood our concerns, but he did not go any further to say exactly if they were going to be dealt with and when, so there is nothing. I am aware he has already been presented with similar arguments by the director of public prosecutions and even the chief justice. I am going to ask my members to withdraw our services,” Harris told the Observer.

“We are going to use the opportunity, perhaps, to do quick education. The public needs to be aware that we are not saying legislation must be weak on persons who use firearms to terrorise our Jamaican citizens, we are not saying the legislation needs to be weak; we are saying that the legislation is to be fair and cognisant that not every case is the same,” Harris said.

The protests come just over a week after the justice minister’s comments at the Annual Assize Service of the judiciary. Chuck said, while the mandatory minimum sentences contained in the provision were being reviewed because of widespread concerns, “The security forces and a number of my colleagues feel that the Act is working and it is bringing down murders and shootings.

“It is under consideration, but firearms are a major problem in our country, and that is why we don’t want to send a signal that we are going to relent on the enforcement to condemn the possession and the use of firearms. But it is under consideration,” Chuck said.

The comments triggered furious commentary from several quarters.

A week later members of Jamaica’s legal profession met on Saturday, September 19 to consider what they described as “the operation and impact of the Act, particularly its mandatory sentencing provisions and the restrictions placed on judicial discretion”.

In a statement issued following that meeting, the attorneys said, “The legal profession supports strong and effective laws to combat gun violence and punish those who use illegal firearms to murder, rob, terrorise and intimidate our citizens. Our concern is not with strong penalties. Our concern is with a sentencing regime that does not adequately allow judges to distinguish between offenders, offences, and individual circumstances.”

The Act, which prescribes a mandatory 15-year sentence for specified violations, took effect in November 2022 and, among other things, provides penalties ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of illegal weapons. It establishes a dual regime — distinguishing between prohibited weapons or unregulated firearms and connected activities, and firearms that are duly authorised or registered.

According to the advocates, their September 19 meeting “identified several areas of serious concern, including the restriction of judicial discretion; the proportionality of mandatory minimum sentences in individual cases; the diminished incentive for early guilty pleas; the resulting increase in matters proceeding to trial and pressure on an already burdened criminal justice system; the treatment of imitation firearms; and the consequences of certain provisions for licensed firearm holders”.

“The legal profession is calling for urgent amendments to the Act, including consideration of an ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision allowing judges appropriate discretion in deserving cases, meaningful sentencing incentives for early guilty pleas, reform of the certificate regime, and a review of the provisions governing imitation firearms and licensed firearm holders. The profession also calls for urgent, structured consultation with the Government, Opposition, Parliament, the judiciary and other relevant stakeholders on the proposed amendments”, the attorneys said in that statement.