The Domestic Terrorism Bill now before the House of Assembly creates a new offence targeting reckless shootings and violent attacks in public places, which Attorney General Wilfred Abrahams declared on Tuesday was a necessary response to a changing Barbados.
In today’s Barbados, he told lawmakers, disputes were no longer handled by fists and the pelting of rocks but by firearms in the hands of people who “don’t care” and who traded in the business of crime, retaliation and terror.
While terrorism often refers to violent acts for political purposes, Abrahams defended the anti-terror bill, noting that the government has recognised situations where terror is created in the hearts of citizens.
He said: “It was deemed necessary that we had to shape our legislation to meet the evolving and apparent circumstances in which we find ourselves, and it was deemed expedient and critical to create a separate offence that addresses serious violent crimes committed in public spaces in circumstances calculated to instill fear in the public, or committed with a reckless disregard for public safety.
“So the intention here is to create a modern legislative framework that deters brazen public violence, enhances public safety, and provides additional sanctions for offenders whose conduct terrorises communities and undermines public confidence.”
Under the new legislation, those convicted of committing domestic terrorism must serve their sentence consecutively to other sentences rather than concurrently.
Abrahams explained: “This legislation focuses on the circumstances surrounding the serious offences. The serious offence must have happened for this to kick in, but it also focuses on the circumstances around it, rather than just simply trying to capture it under what we call terrorism. So we’re creating a new offence.”
The bill defines serious criminal offences as those punishable by death or with a sentence of five or more years or which derive benefits valued at $5 000 or more, the AG said.
Abrahams also outlined that along with public fear and reckless disregard, domestic terrorism is also included bias-motivated circumstances, including race, nationality, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, or religion and that the bill dealt with those persons who unlawfully imported, possessed, carried, or used firearms or ammunition of such type, quantity, or manner as to pose a significant threat to public safety.
He said: “This bill does not redefine all serious crimes as terrorism. Instead, it creates the additional offence where serious criminal conduct terrorizing the public is committed with reckless disregard for public safety, is motivated by certain forms of arrests, or involves particularly dangerous firearm activity that threatens the wider community.
“So where the principal crime occurs in a public place, including but not limited to shopping centers, restaurants and bars, bus terminals, parks and beaches, streets and highways, government buildings open to the public or places of entertainment and mass public activities, where members of the public are present or likely to be present and therefore by exposed to the danger created by the offender’s conduct, and the circumstances are such that the conduct is capable of causing fear for personal safety among bystanders, whether that fear is actually experienced or reasonably foreseeable.”
The attorney general said it was necessary to distinguish between serious violent crime conducted in relative isolation, and the same crime committed in public.
Outlining the penalties, he said that where the act of domestic terrorism results in the death of a person, the offender may suffer death or be liable to be sentenced for life in prison, while other serious offenders could receive life imprisonment.
Offenders convicted of both serious offences and of domestic terrorism will be required to fully serve the sentence for the serious offence and then the sentence for the terrorism, ensuring that persons who commit such acts are not out “in 10 or 15 years”.
“If you do these acts that constitute domestic terrorism, you will spend the vast majority of the rest of your life at Dodds Prison, if you don’t suffer death as part of your sentence because of the heinous nature of your crime,” he said.
Recent, brazen incidents of violence in public spaces did not properly fall within the scope of the current anti-terrorism law, he said, requiring a new offence for crimes committed in public spaces to instil fear.
The bill, unlike manslaughter and murder legislation, captures the overall circumstances and the effect on the country as a whole.
He recounted a litany of public violent acts, including a murder in Sheraton Centre in 2019, which left scores of patrons, including a group of blind people, scampering in fear in the mall.
Abrahams continued: “The perpetrator was reckless as to his impact on the persons in the vicinity. That is an act of terror. It is not political. It is not ideological. It is a brutal act of terror, a violent act conducted in such circumstances. The public was entitled and expected to feel fear and terror.
“Let’s talk about the shooting in a Nelson Street establishment. Somebody rolled up in Nelson Street, and shot up a bar, resulting in the death of three innocent patrons. I understand the person they were trying to target was not one of them, but you rolled up and shot a public bar in broad daylight in a public area, one of the most frequented areas in the city, reckless as to who was caught in that crossfire. Everyone on that street felt fear and terror. And it’s a case in point that the person you’re going to kill was not even one of the persons who were injured.
“People targeting people coming off of cruises, where you’re all effectively captive on a boat, waiting to disembark. When the shooting starts, you have nowhere to run. You have to leave through one exit. Daylight shootings across multiple districts involving high-powered firearms.
“People went through Deacons and discharge shots. People came in on a motorcycle, and shot up all of Silver Sands with a high-powered weapon. I think 40 spent cases were recovered. Some went through people’s houses. Those are acts of terror. If the current definition of terrorism does not capture them, we have to create a definition that does because we cannot ignore that they are what they are.”
(JB)
