Court of Appeal President Anita Allen, at a special sitting of the Court of Appeal to mark the new legal year, recently called for amendments to laws forcing magistrates to hand down mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug, firearm and ammunition cases.
Parliament passed the laws in 2011 during the term of the last Free National Movement (FNM) administration. People convicted of drug possession with the intent to supply or illegal firearm possession, under the laws, face a fixed sentencing range of four to seven years. Prior to the change in the laws, magistrates were able to sentence those convicted of such crimes based on their own discretion.
The court has not accepted Parliament's decision to set absolute sentencing rules. These mandatory minimum sentences have been overturned on appeal.
Parliament passed the laws to stiffen the punishments given to drug and gun offenders. Previous to the passage of the laws some thought there was too much variance in the sentences given by magistrates to such convicts. Criminals with previous convictions, who needed serious jail time, walked out of courts with fines or short stays at Her Majesty's Prisons.
While many still think mandatory minimum sentences are necessary in The Bahamas in order to ensure prison sentences for certain convicts, the laws are both meaningless and unfair if the court rejects them. They are meaningless because on appeal new sentences will be issued. The laws are unfair to those who are unable to afford good lawyers to file appeals on their behalf.
There is another danger. The Court of Appeal could eventually have a serious backlog of cases before it comprised of drug and gun appeals if the laws stay in effect.
"Significantly, magisterial criminal appeals accounted for over 50 percent of the number of matters disposed of and well over 90 percent of those were appeals against the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentences for drug, firearm and ammunition possession," said Allen.
"The sheer number of these appeals, however, places immense pressure on this court. Moreover, it is in my view an injudicious use of judicial time to have three senior justices doing what magistrates could have done if they had the discretion to impose the appropriate sentence in the first place."
Parliament should, therefore, repeal these mandatory minimum laws and restore discretion to magistrates in these matters. Many Bahamians would like these tough sentences to remain. However, based on the position of the court it would be impractical and unwise to keep them in place.
While Allen rightly said the Crown can appeal what it thinks are unduly lenient sentences by magistrates, some review system needs to arise in The Bahamas regarding judicial officers who regularly issue indefensibly lenient sentences.
Judges have discretion but they also have the responsibility to issue responsible sentences based on the evidence before them. It cannot be reasonably argued that a man with multiple convictions found with an automatic weapon should just be fined. If such irresponsible sentences are the norm in the courts of magistrates justice is not being served.
The government seems minded to take the advice of Allen. It should. Our system would be improved if it does so.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian