A recommendation by an opposition lawmaker that children found in possession of a firearm or ammunition should be referred to the child diversion programme rather than placed before the court on gun charges was yesterday rejected by the chairman of the joint select committee reviewing the Child Diversion Act.
Making a case for “possession simpliciter” of a firearm to be placed in the First Schedule of the child diversion law, Isat Buchanan, opposition spokesman on youth and human rights, cautioned that children could be hauled before the courts for possession of a firearm after being forced to ‘lock’ guns by community dons.
However, Committee Chairman Delroy Chuck said if the child can explain to the courts, in-camera, how he was coerced or instructed by the don to ‘lock’ a firearm, then he may be put on a child diversion programme under Section 37 of the legislation.
Chuck, who is also the minister of justice and constitutional affairs, noted that, as someone who has walked the streets of the inner city, “the people who carry the guns for the criminals are the women and the children”.
Noting that Jamaica is overwhelmed by gun crimes, Chuck argued that even possession of a firearm simpliciter was a serious indictment on society.
He warned that the committee would be sending the wrong signal by making possession of a firearm simpliciter by a child a matter for automatic referral to the child diversion programme.
NO SUPPORT FOR PROPOSAL
Chuck told Buchanan, plainly, that Parliament would not support his proposal.
“In many inner-city communities, they flash guns every night enuh, and even the children firing guns. We cannot, now, in this Parliament, say that because a child is found with a gun we [should] send that child immediately to child diversion,” he insisted.
Chuck said there are appropriate cases in which the child could benefit from a child diversion programme where he has been found with a gun.
Buchanan’s proposal got support from Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, state minister in the Ministry of Justice, who indicated that she was sympathetic to the opposition spokesman’s suggestion.
“We are well aware that there are adults who are using children, even those below the age of criminal responsibility, to ‘lock’ and carry firearms,” Buchanan declared during the committee’s deliberations.
“If we are going to be in the business of being able to pull these children and divert them from this deviant behaviour, possession simpliciter has to be a space [where] we can divert them and put them in programmes,” Buchanan contended.
Chuck said he could consider Buchanan’s suggestion that the child benefits under child diversion in a context where he is found with a ‘toy gun’.
According to Chuck, a child found in possession of a gun should not automatically be referred to child diversion, but the courts should be allowed to make a decision on the matter.
He also argued that the so-called dons could use the diversion law to their advantage and continue to exploit children, knowing that they would only be referred to child diversion if found in possession of a gun.
In her remarks, Dalrymple-Philibert acknowledged the points made by Buchanan, stressing that in certain communities, “when the don says, ‘You hold this’, a young child sometimes fears for his own life if he doesn’t hold it”.
She also argued that when gun possession matters involving children are placed before the courts, “they are not going to get any leniency at all”.
The state minister made it clear that if the child committed an offence with a firearm, that should be treated differently, but if he is held only for possession of the weapon, then child diversion should be considered.
Opposition Senator and committee member Donna Scott-Mottley said it would be useful if the committee had provided data from the courts to indicate the number of children who appeared before the courts to answer to offences relating to possession of a firearm.
“This is such an important discussion. It points to the real need for the revision of the Firearms Act which has been promised, but it requires significant analysis and deliberation, and I wouldn’t want to make the recommendation without the important documentation to guide me,” she added.
However, an unrelenting Buchanan argued that he did not need any data to say that preserving the human capital of a child in Jamaica was foremost.
“I am simply saying, I practise in the criminal courts, judges sit and say, ‘Mr Buchanan, my hands are tied’; in-camera, judges say ‘my hands are tied’.”
He questioned how deviant behaviour could be listed in the First Schedule of the Child Diversion Act but possession simpliciter of a firearm was not.
edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com
