.png)
00:00
00:00
00:00
Attorney-at-law John Clarke
By Halshane Burke
Questions are being raised about the right of Parliament to make laws that curtail the discretion of judges.
Attorney-at-law John Clarke says the latitude of lawmakers to impose restrictive legislation needs to be examined.
He was speaking against the background of the recent Privy Council ruling in the appeal brought by Tafari Morrison that a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for gun-related crimes was not unconstitutional.
Mr. Clarke said the Privy Council has set the bar so high that it is questionable in any single case whether any child will be able to say that a mandatory minimum sentence applied to them is problematic.
"It raises for us as Jamaicans, as the citizens of our country, a more fundamental question, which is whether or not it is okay or it is permissible for Parliament essentially to impose whatever sentence Parliament thinks necessary and for the hands of our wise judges to be tied so they essentially cannot do justice," Mr. Clarke contended.
He said the ability of Parliament to enact laws that institute punitive measures should be carefully considered.
"So what if I am in Parliament and I think that the death penalty is an appropriate sentence for a child to insult the minister and say nasty things about that minister? And if I have political power and we can pass a legislation that says a mandatory minimum sentence for any child who posts nasty comments on Facebook or Twitter or TikTok about us is the death sentence, and that becomes the law, is that a country that we want to live in?" he questioned.
Mr. Clarke was speaking Monday on the Morning Agenda on Power 106.
All feeds
