The dismissal as fallacious by King’s Counsel (KC) Peter Champagnie of recent assertions by Justice Minister Delroy Chuck that the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022 is being partly credited by members of the security forces and other key stakeholders for the sharp decline in murders and shootings prompted me to fast-track my intention to, for the purposes of my legislative duties, cause data to be made available which indicate whether there has been a noticeable increase or decline in the number of new gun-related cases brought before the court since the Act was passed.

“At the risk of being acerbic, for anyone to suggest that this new Act is to be credited with the decrease in murders, [they live] not in Jamaica, but exist in Wonderland… the empirical evidence does not indicate that there has been a corresponding reduction in the number of gun-related offences since the passage of the [] in 2022,” KC Champagnie was quoted in the Jamaica Observer as stating, inter alia.

The comments were made by the attorney as he joined some of his colleagues at the defence bar who have been critical of aspects of the amended Firearms Act, including the mandatory minimum penalty provision of 15 years.

I challenge as inaccurate any insinuation that there has not been a corresponding reduction in the number of new serious gun-related offences since the passage of the Firearms Act.

Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act 2022 has become a lightning rod for defence attorneys.

Aspects of an impact analysis of the amended Firearms Act in Jamaica and new cases presented to the Gun Court, which took into consideration official judicial statistics, confirm that, following the passing of the Act, new gun-related cases entering the formal justice system have noticeably decreased.

When new case filings within the High Court Division of the Gun Court are used as the definitive institutional proxy for serious firearm offences, the statistical record provided by the Court Administration Division (CAD) provides a direct answer to the core inquiry as to whether the legislative amendment coincides with a distinct contraction in gun crime incidence placed before the court.

The answer is yes. There have been approximately double-digit declines.

CAD data reveal that the Gun Court recorded 363 gun-case filings in 2024, compared with 403 new cases in the immediate pre-legislation benchmark year of 2021 — an initial intake reduction of approximately 10 per cent. This confirms a nearly double-digit decline in the number of people prosecuted and brought before the Gun Court immediately following the passage of mandatory minimum penalties of 15 years in relation to particular gun offences.

Peter Champagnie.

Furthermore, the data provided by the CAD also confirm double-digit medium-term systemic contraction or declines in the number of new Gun Court cases when evaluated against the historical pre-reform peak in 2019. In 2019, there were 508 new cases brought before the Gun Court. Total annual case intake contracted to 363 new filings in 2024 and 389 new filings in 2025.

When compared to 2019, this represents an overall structural reduction of 28 per cent in 2024 and 23.4 per cent in 2025 in new gun cases entered into the court docket since the passage of the Act.

I am advised that the data which have been tabulated so far for the Hilary Term suggest that 86 new gun cases were brought before the court this year, which, if replicated across the remaining terms, will secure another double-digit decline in new cases brought before the Gun Court when 2026 is compared to years prior to the passage of the Act.

While debate may continue concerning causation and correlation, the aforementioned data not only repel as inaccurate suggestions that the empirical evidence does not indicate there has been a corresponding reduction in the number of new gun-related offences since the passage of revised gun laws, but also provide support for a view expressed by law enforcement that, since the passage of the Act, their information indicates that more people, including prospective criminals, have thought twice about placing themselves in circumstances in which they may be prosecuted for gun-related offences and have, in fact, judiciously elected to proceed along a lawful path.

It is worth noting that, in the years subsequent to 2022, when Jamaica’s gun laws were amended and there were 1,498 murders in Jamaica, murders have plummeted by over 55 per cent, with 673 people being murdered in 2025. Those reductions have continued into this current year.

Zuleika Jess

It is also deserving of considerable contemplation that, prior to the consecutive years of decline which began in 2023, Jamaica had recorded almost 40,000 murders over the previous 30 to 35 years. That’s beyond the capacity of the National Stadium, and the gun has been the weapon of choice in the vast majority of these murders.

I fully support the mandatory minimum penalty for particular gun offences and remain of the view that efforts by some stakeholders, including the Opposition spokesman on justice, Zuleika Jess, to denigrate amended gun laws as unnecessarily “merciless” should be repelled.

In debating the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, we should not forget the multiple prior cases which prompted justifiable public outrage and consternation when perceived light sentences were handed down to people convicted of serious gun crimes. The retort from some stakeholders was often along the lines of a sentiment which intimated: Blame the legislators, for it is they who arrogated unto the judiciary a bandwith which allows for leniency.

The emerging evidence is clear. Our legislators have acted and sent a clear policy signal, and we are obtaining positive results. I do not believe those results should be disturbed by a few stakeholder groups who, when nearly 40,000 Jamaicans were being murdered by the gun over the past three and a half decades, were not at any time motivated to pursue curious high-profile protests in the vicinity of our court, but this week resorted to such action as they seek to add fuel to their push for radical revision of a more draconian gun law which was passed in 2022.

In fairness, with consideration for the creative industry, I do not oppose revision of aspects of the law which pertain to imitation firearms.

However, as far as the overall 2022 amendments are concerned, including the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty, the data suggest that, if we are to further significantly reduce incidence of gun crime, including murder, and stamp out a destructive and painful culture of gun violence which has burdened our country for too long, the Government must stay the legislative course.

We should not be inveigled into action which diminishes the positive results-oriented path we have embarked upon, which is one which augurs well for the creation of a safer and more secure Jamaica.

Abka Fitz-Henley is a Government Senator, state minister in the Office of the Prime Minister, and chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party’s Communication Taskforce.

Abka Fitz-Henley,