The sentencing powers of the Magistrate are set to increase under the newly passed Magistrate’s Code of Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2024.
This amendment to the Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Cap 255 allows Magistrates to impose higher penalties, raising the maximum penalty from 2 years to 5 years for a single offence and from 5 years to 7 years for multiple convictions.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
The bill also adds indictable offences under the Anti-Gang Act 20224 to the list of offences for which bail cannot be granted by the Magistrate.
Additionally, Magistrates now have the authority to remit cases to the High Court based on the seriousness of the offence.
Under this amendment, all Civil Proceedings will be heard at the Magistrate’s Court. The bill was debated by Attorney General Hon. Sir Steadroy Benjamin and MP Hon. Asot Michael.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
Debating the bill MP Hon. Asot A. Michael Member for St Peters SAID:
The Bill to amend the Magistrates’ Code of Procedure Act, Cap. 255 introduces several changes that increase the sentencing powers of magistrates and align bail provisions with more serious offenses. But we need to evaluate its effectiveness, especially regarding whether or not the amendment to section 62 is necessary in light of certain provisions of the Bail Act of 2019:
Key Observations:
1. Increased Sentencing Powers (Clause 4)
– Strength: The amendment to section 98(1) significantly increases the penalties that a magistrate can impose, extending the sentencing powers from 2 years to 5 years for a single offense and from 5 years to 7 years for multiple convictions sentenced together. This change gives magistrates more flexibility in dealing with more serious offenses within the scope of their authority, especially given the rising crime rates.
– Possible Issue: While this gives magistrates the power to impose longer sentences, it also increases the risk of disproportionate sentencing for less serious offenses that might still fall under their jurisdiction. Care should be taken to ensure that the increased penalties are applied judiciously and are proportional to the offense.
Improvement Suggestion: Introduce clear sentencing guidelines that accompany this increase in powers to ensure that magistrates have a framework for determining when to apply the higher penalties. This can help prevent inconsistent sentencing and avoid disproportionately harsh penalties for minor offenses.
2. Power to Remit Cases to the High Court (Clause 5)
– Strength: The new section 100 grants magistrates the discretion to remit cases to the High Court when they believe that the sentencing powers available to them are insufficient based on the evidence presented. This is a positive step, as it ensures that serious cases that require harsher penalties can be handled appropriately.
– Possible Issue: Without clear criteria for remitting cases, there may be inconsistencies in how magistrates decide which cases to remit. Furthermore, frequent referrals to the High Court could lead to bottlenecks in the system.
Section 100 seems unnecessary because if the offence is hybrid (triable either way), the file must be sent to the DPP for his/her approval to proceed summarily or in the High Court.
So, if the DPP is worth his/her salt, then having reviewed the file, he or she must have assessed the evidence from the witness statements and direct the police accordingly how to proceed. Furthermore, this process is hardly ever used and has not been used for decades as far as I can recall.
Improvement Suggestion: Provide guidelines or criteria for remitting cases to the High Court, specifying the types of cases or offenses where such a referral is appropriate. Additionally, there could be a provision for review mechanisms to ensure that magistrates are not overburdening the High Court with cases that could be resolved within their sentencing authority.
3. Bail Restrictions for Indictable Offenses under the Anti-Gang Act (Clause 3)
– Strength: The amendment to section 62(3) adds indictable offenses under the Anti-Gang Act 2024 to the list of offenses for which magistrates are not permitted to grant bail. This is in line with efforts to combat gang-related crimes, which have serious implications for public safety.
– Issue with Overlap: Section 8 of the Bail Act No. 19 of 2019 already addresses restrictions on bail for serious offenses. The need for an additional restriction in this Bill might create overlapping or redundant provisions, unless the scope of the Anti-Gang Act is substantially different from what is already covered by the Bail Act.
– Improvement Suggestion: Mr. Speaker, the Bail Act sets out quite clearly the offences with which the magistrate cannot grant bail. It would be better and cleaner to amend the Bail Act of 2019 to include in it, offences under the Anti-Gang Legislation.
Furthermore, the Magistrates Code of Procedure Act amended that section 62 in 2004 and in 2005, but that section 62 is not used by the magistrates nor the lawyers nor the DPP, because it is already deemed to be repealed impliedly by the Bail Act 2019, since in law, the later statute repealed the older statute impliedly if it covers the same thing.
Therefore, amending section 62 is not only confusing… it has already been impliedly repealed by Section 8 of the Bail Act 2019.
Under the doctrine of Implied repeal, even where parliament does not expressly repeal an earlier statute, the later statute is deemed to have impliedly repealed the earlier statute touching on the same subject matter or issue.
Section 8 of the Bail Act No. 19 of 2019 already set out the various offences to which bail cannot be granted; and all that is needed is to make the slight adjustment under the Bail Act.
A glaring error under the Bail Act 2019 is that Attempted Murder is not included in one of the non-bailable offences. Hon. Attorney General, this needs to be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying in closing, let us ensure the Bill enhances the magistrates’ powers while maintaining clarity and fairness in sentencing and bail decisions.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
INCREASING SENTENCING POWERS…? …ARE THEY TRYNG TO FOOL IDIOTS?
It has bee long said: ‘…Call no darn name: …Take no darn blame.’
PRIMITIVE DRACONISM (coined)
While idiots, may, none shall be ‘…FOOLED,’ neither by:
(a) ‘…Sentimentality: nor
(b) …Intellectuality.’
PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE
From a professional:
(a) ‘…Law enforcement Career: and
(b) …Practical Police Prosecutions experience,’ every ‘…DISTRICT MAGISTRATE’ is guided
by the ‘…MAGISTRATE’S CODE OF PROCEDURE ACT.’
These ‘Magistrates’ were then guided by the prescribed ‘…PUNISHMENTS’ contained in the particular ‘…LAW.’
MERIT/DISCRETION
Every Case was not only dealt with on its ‘…OWN MERIT,’ but also by ‘Magistrates’ exercising ‘…MAGISTERIAL DISCRETION.’
OECS SENTENCING GUIDELINES
In recent years, within the ‘…ORGANIZATION OF EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES (OECS),’ through the ‘…CHIEF JUSTICE,’ the ‘…Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC)’ had established its own ‘…SENTENCING GUIDELINES.’
PRIMITIVE DRACONISM
Some ‘OECS’ leaders seemed to have had angst with these ‘…GUIDELINES.’
Then for some ‘…UNGODLY REASONS,’ some ‘…PARLIAMENTARIANS,’ appeared to have harbored in their punishable minds ‘…PENALTIES’ that speak to ‘…PRIMITIVE DRACONISM.’
The Laws recently passed within the ‘Legislature,’ could easily be associated with such term.
PARLIAMENTARIANS FOR NUMERICALS VALUE: …INCREASED PENALTIES
In fact the ‘…PARLIAMENTARIANS,’ many of whom were well known for their ‘…NUMERICAL VALUE.’ This was to be seen when ‘…PASSAGE OF BILLS’ required ‘…VOTES’ of:
(a) ‘…AYES: or
(b) ….NOES.’
INCREASED PENALTIES
Factually, ‘PARLIAMENT’ have not not ‘…Increased the Sentencing Power of Magistrates,’ but instead, have ‘ …INCREASED THE PENALTIES’ for certain criminal acts.
GRAVELY OVERPOWERED MAGISTRATES:
It was obvious that the ‘…NUMB PARLIAMENTARIANS’ appear mindful of the ‘…ORIGINAL PENALTY’ in the ‘…HUMAN TRAFFICKING LAW.’
This had ‘…GRAVELY OVERPOWERED MAGISTRATES.’
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
This was judicially-declared by the ‘…HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE’ to be ‘…UNCONSTITUTIONAL.’
WALK GOOD.
Comments are closed.