Split over firearm possession penalty
THE Government is standing firm on its proposed provision in the 2022 Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction Regulation) Act for people found in possession of an illegal firearm to be slapped with a minimum 15-year prison sentence.
Opposition senators Donna Scott Mottley and Peter Bunting, members of the joint select committee reviewing the Act, on Thursday cautioned against a mandatory minimum sentence, arguing that people can come into simple possession of a firearm in a number of circumstances.
But Minister of Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte argued that there is no place in the courts for sympathy, and reminded the committee that there is a full judicial process before a person is convicted.
“I am comforted by the fact that matters before the court are dealt with in accordance with rules and the law. While it is human to be sympathetic, sympathy has no proper place in a court of law when decisions are being taken. If there is reasonable doubt, you acquit, even if you feel that someone may be guilty. If you feel sure on the evidence, you convict, and when it comes to sentencing the rules indicate that you have regard for a number of things
what is prescribed in law [and] the antecedence of the accused,” she said.
Under section five of the Act, it is proposed that a person caught with an illegal firearm shall, on conviction before a Circuit Court, be sentenced to imprisonment for life and receive a sentence of no less than 15 years before being eligible for parole.
This is notwithstanding the provisions of the Parole Act which sets out the time within which an offender is eligible for parole.
Scott Mottley said there is inherent danger in the provision, and that accused individuals should not be forced to plead their case under other pieces of law such as the plea negotiation and the criminal justice administration Acts.
“I have to bear in mind the circumstances under which one can be charged with simpliciter possession. I am uncomfortable with it. I can find no research that shows that mandatory sentences actually act as a deterrent,” she said.
Member of Parliament for Hanover Western, attorney Tamica Davis, said that while she did not want to be perceived as being opposed to Government policy, and understood the objective of the legislation, she agreed with Scott Mottley’s position, as she has seen first-hand many instances in which a provision such as this one would not “apply favourably”.
She pointed out that not all the possession cases that come before the Gun Court follow the same pattern.
“Not all the matters that come before the Gun Court the accused persons are gunmen. There are many my instances where you have persons who have come upon or it has come upon them, that they are deemed to be in possession,” Davis said.
Malahoo Forte further contended that possession is the foundation for all firearm offences. She said while it is understood that people can be framed, there is still a question as to the reason someone would deliberately take possession of an unlicensed firearm, if not to use the weapon at some point.
“If you don’t have it, you can’t use it, and if you come into it in circumstances, turn it over and you’ll be treated differently. I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the judges who convict persons, that they were satisfied to the extent that they felt sure of guilt in the same way, notwithstanding any concern that I may have when you hear stories about people being acquitted. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the judge that there was reasonable doubt,” she emphasised.
National security minister and committee chairman Dr Horace Chang said the matter was a “delicate one”, but reiterated that anyone found with an illegal weapon must face penalties.
“There is no escape route as far as I’m concerned. Illegal firearms are coming into the country in large numbers and are being used to slaughter Jamaicans,” he said.