JUSTICE Minister Delroy Chuck is pushing for victims of crime to have a greater role in the sentencing process, especially where plea bargaining is involved.

He said victims often feel robbed of the opportunity to give evidence in court when the accused pleads guilty.

“There are many cases reported to me where people go to court thinking that they are going to give evidence, only to hear that the offender has pleaded guilty under the Criminal Justice and Administration Act and the case in done and the victim says, ‘but I never had a chance to play role in the whole process’ and that is why I am saying whenever there is going to be a guilty plea, the victims or their families should be consulted,” Chuck insisted.

Changes to the guilty plea framework are among several proposed amendments to be made to the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act, 2023, which makes provisions for discounted sentences. This is one of two Bills Chuck tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday. The other is the Offences Against The Person (Amendment) Bill, which will deal with increasing the mandatory minimum sentence for murder.

Chuck says he wants the sentence reduction matter addressed when the Bills are referred to a joint select committee of Parliament for further consideration and interrogation.

“The sentiment has been expressed that the application of discounts has led to manifestly low sentences being given that do not reflect the nature and seriousness of the offences. It has left victims and family members dissatisfied with the process towards justice,” Chuck said.

The justice minister said his personal view is that the regime established under the Plea Negotiations and Agreements Act of 2017 is robust enough to ensure that all the relevant parties, particularly the victims of the crimes and their families have their say in determining what justice looks like in the circumstances, whilst concurrently increasing the court’s disposal rate.

Chuck pointed out that the Criminal Justice (Administration)(Amendment) Act 2015 has created some challenges, in that for all offences, when a guilty plea is proffered and accepted by the court, at the very earliest opportunity, the accused person who has pleaded guilty is eligible for a reduction of sentence up to 50 per cent.

“It has created many problems because frequently the victims, the police, and the prosecution are not brought into the general discussion of the sentence; they can but they are usually not. So it is after the judge imposes the sentence that everybody starts to quarrel and most sentences under the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act 2015, the judge has followed the law, but the people are very upset because they are not brought into the sentencing process,” he said.

“I would like for us at the joint select committee to discuss this because I believe that the Plea Bargain Agreement and Negotiations Act encourages a general discussion between the prosecution and the defence to look at what is an appropriate sentence and that 50 per cent could be a guide.

“It’s a challenge and we need to be able to ensure that when a persons gets [to plead guilty] that at least the victim, the police the prosecution that their concerns are taken so that nobody can quarrel at the end of the day. And that is what I am hoping when we get to the joint select committee can look at it and make some recommendations to the Parliament as to how we move forward,” he added.

Chuck noted that more importantly legislators want the Bill, when it goes to the joint select committee, to “send a message to persons who are contract killers, persons who are engaged in gang violence, persons who are engaged in domestic abuse, and persons who can’t control themselves that they must know that if you inflict a killing, you could remain in jail for a long, long time”.

Turning to the specific proposals of the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Bill, Chuck said it seeks to amend Section 42(F) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act by increasing the term of years to be deemed as “life imprisonment” from 30 years to 50 years where the offence committed is murder.

“The starting point for calculating the reduction in the sentence is usually life imprisonment and the aim of this proposed amendment is to maintain an incentive scheme for defendants to plead guilty while ensuring that the reduced sentence is not inordinately low having regard to the serious nature of the offence,” he said.

Chuck said this is in tandem with this reasoning that it is also proposed that Section 42(E)(3) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act be amended to stipulate that the Court shall not impose a sentence that is less than a term of 30 years.

“I should also note that a proposed amendment to the Child Care And Protection Act, generally in line with the objective of these two Bills, will follow in short order,” he said.

In terms of the Offences Against The Person (Amendment) Bill, it proposes that in Section 3(1)(b) the proposed amendment is to increase the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment from 15 to 45 years.

In Section 3(1C), which deals with eligibility of parole for capital murder, the proposal is to increase the mandatory minimum sentence to be served before being eligible for parole from 20 years to 50 years.

Minister Chuck said for non-capital murder, where the sentence given is life imprisonment, the proposal is to increase the mandatory minimum sentence to be served before being eligible for parole from 15 years to 40 years.

He said where the sentence given was a term of years, it is proposed to increase the mandatory minimum sentence to be served before being eligible for parole from 10 to 35 years.

Chuck said the increased mandatory minimums will provide greater alignment between the sentencing regimes governing serious crimes and the public’s expectations of the justice system.

“The possibility of the imposition of a more punitive sentence will go a long way in preserving the credibility of Jamaica’s justice system in the eyes of individuals traumatised by the untimely death of their loved ones,” he said

In his response to Chuck’s presentation, leader of the Opposition Mark Golding agreed that the Bills should go to a joint select committee because they have wide and deep implications for the justice system and the society.

“The proposals in the Bill[s] have far-reaching consequences for the justice system and for the prison system and it is vital that voices who have a stake in this come and be heard at the joint select committee so that the right decisions can be made in relation to these proposals,” he said.