Advocates’ Association presses Senate to reinstate judge-led firearm sentencing before September term

The Advocates’ Association of Jamaica (AAJ) is pressing the Senate to give judges back the power to tailor firearm sentences, saying fixed mandatory minimums are yielding unfair results and ought to be revised before the next court term opens.

The association wants those changes in place ahead of the September start of the new term.

In a July 16 letter to the Senate president and senators, AAJ President Tamika Harris sought urgent amendments to the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022. The reforms would let judges move away from mandatory minimums when the interests of justice so require, while still reserving harsh penalties for the most serious gun offenders.

Harris restated the AAJ’s backing for strong punishment of people who commit violent crimes with guns, but said, “Those who use firearms to commit violent crime should receive severe punishment. However, the law must also be fair, proportionate and capable of delivering justice in individual cases.”

The association accepted that Parliament must protect the public and set penalties for grave offences, yet insisted that sentencing remains a judicial task. Judges, it said, must weigh the facts, the offender’s blameworthiness and the interests of justice independently.

According to the AAJ, the amendments would revive that constitutional balance rather than soften Jamaica’s stand against gun violence.

Mandatory minimums, the group argued, stop courts from separating offenders by culpability — first-timers and recidivists, people who only possess a firearm and those who deploy one in violence.

Courts should also be able to draw lines between principal actors and those on the margins; adults who enlist children in firearm crimes and young first offenders who show real scope for rehabilitation; and cases involving prohibited weapons versus imitation firearms where the facts point to markedly lesser blame.

“These are fundamentally different situations. Justice requires that they do not automatically attract the same sentence,” the AAJ said.

Lumping those cases together, the association maintained, undercuts fairness and proportionality in sentencing.

The AAJ further urged that the certificate process in Section 42K of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act be repealed or overhauled, calling it needless and ineffective.

As the law now stands, a judge who finds a mandatory minimum excessive must still impose it, then issue a certificate so the offender can seek relief in the Court of Appeal.

“If the sentencing judge has already determined that the mandatory sentence would be unjust, the law should permit the judge to impose a proportionate sentence immediately,” the association argued.

It also proposed giving the Court of Appeal clear statutory power to go below the mandatory floor whenever justice requires, whether or not a certificate was granted.

“Justice should not require an unjust sentence to be imposed before a just one can be substituted,” the association added.

The AAJ said the appeal court’s authority to set a fitting sentence should not hinge on a trial judge’s certificate.

“Whenever a firearm sentence is properly before the Court of Appeal, it should have express statutory authority to impose the sentence that the interests of justice require.”

The association also flagged that Section 42K seems limited to people who have been “tried and convicted”, which may shut out equal relief for those who plead guilty.

That gap, it warned, could discourage early guilty pleas and push more contested trials.

Without legislative change, the AAJ said, defence counsel will keep mounting constitutional challenges, appeals and other lawful steps for their clients.

With the new term nearing, the association called on the Senate to move swiftly so the amendments can take effect before it starts.

“Parliament has an opportunity to strengthen, not weaken, Jamaica’s firearm legislation by restoring fairness, proportionality and judicial discretion while preserving severe penalties for the most dangerous offenders.”