Champagnie takes issue with mandatory 15-year sentence for illegal gun, without exceptions

 

Defence Attorney Peter Champagnie is concerned that the new Firearms Act makes no provision for exceptional circumstances in prescribing a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence for possession of an illegal gun.

 

Making a submission on Thursday before the joint parliamentary committee reviewing the Bill, Mr. Champagnie said he had no issue with the proposed mandatory minimum sentences.

 

However, he noted that there are circumstances where the mandatory minimum could be considered too harsh.

 

Mr. Champagnie raised the case of crane operator Albert Paulton, who was found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm after a man who was being sought by the police ran into his home and gave him a gun to hide. 

 

"The Appeal Court comprising of the president, the Honourable Mr. Justice Brooks, found that these circumstances were unusual set of circumstances and affirmed the conviction, but importantly, did not disturb the type of sentence that was meted out to Mr. Paulton, who was really given 12 years' probation. In other words, put on probation, not a custodial sentence."

 

Mr. Champagnie argued that under the new Firearms Act, in its current form, "there is absolutely no provision for a situation like that," which would mean someone like Mr. Paulton would have to spend no less than 15 years in prison.  

 

Mr. Champagnie urged the committee to consider making provision for lesser sentences in exceptional cases.

 

However, National Security Minister Dr. Horace Chang said while he understood the concerns, legislators must grapple with ensuring that penalties under the Act are sufficiently serious, given the prevalence of gun violence in Jamaica. 

 

"We are intervening in liberty of individuals but in many of the more difficult communities that we are talking [about], there’s no liberty, except the liberty of the man who controls the gun. It’s just a fact of life. So, Mr. Paulton... and others like him, his liberty is long gone. He moves according to the direction of the don and the criminal leader, and it is how we can extricate the criminals from that without implicating Mr. Paulton. That's the challenge I have," Dr. Chang explained. 

 

 

Mr. Champagnie also wants DNA swabbing to be done in all cases in which the police say an illegal gun was taken from someone.

 

He said it is important that these cases not be based solely on the word of  the police, given the serious penalties being introduced. 

 

"We want to move the discourse in the way of evidence from the mere 'say-so' of a police officer. That is what we are concerned about because experience has shown in a number of cases – the Queen against Xavier Thompson, the Queen against Leonard Campbell, the Queen against Keon Francis – these are all recent cases where, but for the DNA result, the outcome of the case would have been different."  

 

Mr. Champagnie said preparing of DNA reports in these matters could also help with disposing of cases faster. 

 

"Some time ago in the west, in the regional gun court, there was a situation where the senior officers embarked on doing DNA swabbing once firearm [was] taken from the person of the accused and what that resulted in, Sir, in many instances, you had persons giving guilty pleas," he pointed out.