‘Not a confrontation between lawyers and the State’

Advocates’ Association of Jamaica President Tamika Harris on Friday rallied colleague attorneys to “remain resolute” ahead of next week’s planned withdrawal from courtrooms islandwide to press for changes to the 2022 Firearms Act while insisting that their protest “is not a confrontation between lawyers and the State”. The week-long strike, which Harris on Friday confirmed will begin in earnest on Monday, September 28, comes after last Wednesday’s ‘silent protest’ outside the Supreme Court on King Street in downtown Kingston which was followed by an emergency meeting Thursday with Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Delroy Chuck. During that protest, placard-bearing members of the Jamaican Bar Association and the Advocates Association, in collaboration with Bar associations across the island, demanded that their concerns about the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022 and its impact on “justice, due process and the rule of law” be taken on board for reform. After the meeting with Chuck failed to produce any commitments from the Government, Harris, in a statement issued Friday, stated, “A meeting is not an amendment. Engagement without a timeline is not reform. Discussion without action does not change the law. It is now September. The legislation remains unchanged. The consequences continue. We must not falter. I urge my colleagues to remain resolute. Momentum must not fade.” Pointing to recent commentary by the prime minister, the national security minister and Minister Chuck which, she argued, demonstrated awareness that the provision needs to be amended, Harris said, “This is not a confrontation between lawyers and the State. The Government itself has acknowledged that amendments are needed. Minister Chang said there are things we have to change. Minister Chuck has confirmed that mandatory minimums are under review. There is substantial common ground. What is required now is urgency, a clear timeline, and action. “Our call is for meaningful judicial discretion, proper recognition of early guilty pleas, a workable plea negotiation system [and] a mechanism to prevent injustice in exceptional cases. These objectives do not weaken public safety. They strengthen justice,” the Advocates’ Association of Jamaica president stated. She emphasised that the stance of the attorneys should not be seen as support for criminals. “Illegal firearms have caused immeasurable harm in Jamaica. Those who use guns to kill, rob, terrorise and intimidate must face serious consequences. Our call for reform must never be misrepresented as a call for weak gun laws. We are asking for a sentencing system that remains firm against serious firearm offending while allowing judges to distinguish between offenders, offences, and circumstances,” Harris declared. The Act, which prescribes a mandatory 15-year sentence for specified violations, took effect in November 2022 and, among other things, provides penalties ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of illegal weapons. It establishes a dual regime — distinguishing between prohibited weapons or unregulated firearms and connected activities, and firearms that are duly authorised or registered. Harris said Wednesday’s protest was not frivolous. “Our protest was not undertaken lightly. For years the legal profession has raised concerns. In April, the Government indicated amendments were coming ‘in short order’. Yet months have passed. Those of us who practise in the criminal courts see the consequences daily. This is not theory, it is reality affecting real cases, real people, and the proper administration of justice. Further discussion alone was no longer sufficient,” Harris maintained. “The Advocates Association of Jamaica is calling for urgent amendments to the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022. Our position is simple and should unite all Jamaicans: We need strong gun laws, but strong laws must also be fair laws… judicial discretion does not mean leniency, it means allowing judges to consider the offence, the offender, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the interests of justice. We are not asking for the abandonment of serious penalties. We are asking that judges be permitted to judge,” she stated.