DEFENCE attorney Peter Champagnie, King’s Counsel (KC) on Monday pushed back at suggestions that last week’s protests by lawyers about the 2022 Firearms Act were underpinned by financial motives and political affiliations.

“This meeting and this gathering, in some instances, has taken on a political flavour; it is not about JLP (Jamaica Labour Party), PNP (People’s National Party) or any P for that matter; it is about justice and fairness and that is why we are here,” he said during a news conference called by the Jamaican Bar Association as lawyers upheld a pledge to withdraw their services from all criminal courts islandwide in continuation of their push for amendments to the Firearms Prohibition Restriction and Regulation Act 2022.

“We are not here to say we want more cases to be tried so we can get more money and fees, and all that; it doesn’t work like that. The canons of the profession that guide us say that we have a right and an obligation to make recommendations for the improvement of the law, modernisation, and our contribution is in this vein,” Champagnie declared.

Pointing out that judges, prosecutors, and defence practitioners are at one in highlighting the flaws in the legislation, Champagnie emphasised that the Act was intended to prosecute criminals bent on carrying out heinous crimes and not individuals found in unwitting possession of ammunition or weapons.

HARRIS… attorneys not seeking to downplay the seriousness of gun crimes and those involved in criminality

“We are here, not to be perceived — as it is being bandied about — as wanting rights for gunmen or that we are PNP lawyers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are lawyers and we are officers of the court… it equally cannot be right, as far as imitation firearms are concerned, circumstances where imitation firearms were never used in the commission of any crime; circumstances where individuals did not even remember that the items were in their surroundings [for such individuals to find themselves subjected to a 15-year at hard labour minimum mandatory sentence]” Champagnie contended.

“What we are asking for, as far as the statutory minimum mandatory is concerned, is to allow the judge to have a discretion to impose a sentence less than that in exceptional circumstances,” he said.

“What obtains now is a long road where, if the judge is of the view that it warrants less than imprisonment of 15 years he cannot do that, he has to issue a certificate and then the long road begins to the Court of Appeal… What happens in the interim?… That matter is not heard within a matter of weeks; it is heard months and months later,” he said further.

In a jab at Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, who recently indicated that the recent fall in crimes, especially murders, nationally is due to the gains under the Act, Champagnie said this could not be further from the truth.

“There are persons who would want to use statistics to say that the new Act has resulted in decreased matters before the court. That’s simply not so. For example, in 2019 before the passage of the Act there were 508 cases before the Gun Court in Kingston and in 2021 before the passage of the Act those numbers started to go down; in 2021 it moved from 508 to 403. So the reduction started long before. So we don’t want a situation where persons, because they are wedded to political beliefs, cherry-pick and give a distorted view of the figures. Say what it is; say the full truth,” Champagnie argued.

“In 2024, after the Act came into being, the numbers in the Gun Court were 363. Last year it increased to 389 cases, so when persons put forward the narrative that the reduction is as a result of the legislation, that really is not being truthful or candid… and it’s a disservice to the members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force,” Champagnie added.

Colleague attorney Pierre Rogers, KC also told the news briefing the attorneys had no ulterior motives in staging the protest.

“None of us here are politicians… the truth is, our sole concern is to see that justice is dispensed in the courts and I believe that this Act is designed in such a way that justice is a by-product,” he said.

“The notion of taking away a judge’s discretion and putting that judge in a straitjacket is, to my mind, inimical to the interest of justice. Nobody here is attempting to argue against a minimum mandatory; that is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that a trial judge ought to be in a position to hand down a sentence as he or she sees fit. It cannot be that you are asking a judge to hand down a sentence that they know is unjust… for them to issue a certificate to seek justice elsewhere,” Rogers maintained.

Advocate’s Association President Tamika Harris, in her comments, reiterated that attorneys were not seeking to downplay the seriousness of gun crimes and those involved in criminality.

“What we are asking for, in simple words, is that firearms and imitation firearms are dealt with separately so that children who are at play are not at risk of being criminalised. The court must be able to distinguish,” Harris said.

The withdrawal of services follow discontent about the results of a meeting last Thursday with Minister Chuck to address the issues. That meeting was called following a silent protest by the advocates outside the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston last Wednesday.

The lawyers say those discussions concluded without any definitive legislative timeline to address their concerns.

Chuck has, in the meantime, indicated that there is no intention to disturb the 15-year mandatory minimum even though the Act is set to be reviewed next year.