Senior attorney Peter Champagnie, KC — who has been strident about the shortcomings of the 2022 Firearms Act since inception — on Monday welcomed amendments proposed by the National Security Council but is urging criminalisation of couriers or shippers who import illegal firearms into the country by virtue of lax inspection protocols.

His call comes in the wake of Sunday’s announcement by the Office of the Cabinet that the National Security Council (NSC) has recommended that individuals convicted of illegal possession of a firearm should now face a new minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years imprisonment instead of the current 15-year minimum.

The NSC also proposed that adults who groom children to use, store, transport, or acquire illegal guns will face a new criminal offence under the pending amendments to the Act “to address the gap whereby gangs seek to recruit and enlist minors in the commission of gun crimes”.

Additionally, the NSC agreed that further consideration should be given to how cases involving children found with illegal firearms are handled and assured that concerns raised regarding imitation firearms will be “clearly addressed to distinguish between toy guns and guns designed to realistically imitate a weapon”.

The council also said the review would include concerns surrounding firearms with expired licences. In the meantime, however, it said before the new provisions take effect, the Government will provide a gun amnesty and cash buy-back programme, giving anyone holding an illegal gun the opportunity to surrender it. The Ministry of National Security and Peace has been directed to have the draft legislation ready by the end of November 2026 for wider consultations.

On Monday, Champagnie, in an interview with the Jamaica Observer, applauded the pending changes but said, “It was also my expectation and hope that the National Security Council would have looked at specific criminalisation of couriers or shippers who, because of the lack of diligence that is applied to scrutinise and inspect shipments, are used to import illegal firearms into this country.”

Some of the guns that were destined for Jamaica but which were seized at Miami International Airport in 2017.

“As I understand it presently, as it relates to Customs and what obtains, the worst that can be expected if a shipment is contaminated by illegal weapons or anything illegal is that there is perhaps a penalty or a hearing, or there is a suspension of that person’s licence or revocation. But I do believe that it needs to go further in the way of criminalisation, because what the National Security Council needs to also focus on is not just the tail end of the problem; that is to say, persons who are in possession of illegal firearms, but also the source of these firearms, because we do not manufacture firearms here; they have to come from somewhere other than Jamaica. And I think there needs to be stiffer penalties, or indeed penalties, in relation to that. Not just mere trafficking; it has to also reach the shippers and couriers, that is my view,” the prominent defence attorney said.

“They could easily create a mandate where shippers or couriers are required to containerise their shipment in a sterile era where it is video-recorded and presented, and where they would have to show that they took all reasonable steps to ensure that their cargo or the shipment is not contaminated,” Champagnie suggested.

Making it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of other legal bodies, Champagnie said he had no quarrel with the proposal to increase the statutory mandatory minimum from 15 to 20 years.

“That is the supremacy of Parliament. I can’t say that they have no authority for so doing and indeed, I have been on record over the years to say that this idea of giving someone who is caught with an illegal weapon three years or 18 months or even a fine is unacceptable. So I support the statutory mandatory minimum, and if they want to increase it, then that’s their right. However, I do believe that there needs to be a holistic approach with the Firearms Act to facilitate guilty pleas,” Champagnie maintained.

“There must be some incentive for persons wanting to plead guilty, and there must be some exceptional circumstances where a person found in possession of a firearm must be allowed to have a kind of discretion for that person to receive a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum, and in those circumstances, there is authority for it in other jurisdictions where exceptions are specifically laid out. But certainly, in relation to the hardcore criminals and those that use imitation firearms to commit offences, they must expect severe penalties,” he argued.

Champagnie, in the meantime, said legislation which addresses the appeal process in circumstances where a sentence is excessive should also be revisited.

“We must also bear in mind that the prosecution now has the right to appeal if a sentence is given that is considered to be woefully inadequate for the circumstances, and there have been cases that have settled that. So, I would want that to be also considered, and I look forward to the actual details of the report and the recommendations beyond what has been issued by way of a press release, because one is not able to fully appreciate all of the nuances and the extent of the recommendations until we actually are able or in a position to examine the actual paper that is in the way of recommendations,” he told the Observer.

He said the planned silent protest on September 23 and a sit out by some attorneys as part of the push for a review of the Act had not been in vain.

“When the attorneys sought to bring some kind of pressure for the Government to re-examine the Firearms Act, the first comment that was made was that the legislation was up for review next year, and therefore we should await that period. I note, however, that there is a shift now, where there seems to be an intention to have recommended changes effected within this year. That is good, but what it demonstrates is that we are able to pivot and we are able to move with alacrity if the need arises,” he said in urging the authorities to ensure that practitioners from both the private and public bar are at the discussion table.

“I don’t think ever before in our legal history, we have had a situation where a legislation, in the way of the administration of the criminal justice system, has received universal comments in the way of shortcomings by not just the private bar but also the public bar, the prosecution, and in some instances the judges, as it relates to it facilitating guilty plea, and that is a major, major point to be made,” he argued.

“Anyone who is involved in the practice of law day to day will tell you that there are real issues. There are real issues also with licensed firearm holders who run the risk of getting 20 years just by being in possession of a licensed firearm and being caught for instance in a physical confrontation with another person even when they are not using it, so these are fundamental issues that I think need to be examined,” he said.

Section 14(3) of the Act dictates that a person commits a felony if they are in possession of a firearm or an imitation firearm at the time of committing, or when being apprehended for, any specific serious offence listed in the First Schedule of the provision.