Peter Champagnie, Attorney For Mavado’s Son, Rebukes Erroneous Statements About Criminal Justice Act
Attorney-at-law Peter Champagnie, who is also defence attorney for Mavado’s son, Dantay Brooks, and who represented Alkaline and Dexta Daps in the past, took a Jamaican cartoonist to task on Saturday morning, for an illustration which depicted defence attorneys rejoicing over the fact that no amendment would be made to Jamaica’s Criminal Justice Act.
Champagnie, a Queen’s Counsel, expressed his displeasure after the Jamaica Observer posted a cartoon on its Instagram page which showed an apparently money-grubbing defence attorney sprawled on a wad of cash on one side of the scale of justice whilst ripping a document in two, while on the other end of the scale were bodies of murder victims piled on top of each other.
The Observer’s illustration comes apparently, in the aftermath of last week’s uproar in Parliament over the Criminal Justice (Administration) (Amendment) Act, under which consideration can be given by a judge, to a person who pleads guilty, to impose a lesser sentence as opposed to handing down maximum penalties for their misdeeds, depending on certain “mitigating factors”.
On Saturday morning Champagnie ripped into the Observer’s cartoonist Clovis Brown, pointing out that his sketch was promulgating untruths.
“Whereas allowances must always be made for the satirical content of these cartoons, this publication is most unfortunate. It does much to perpetuate falsehood and misinformation!” he declared.
Government backbencher and Member of Parliament for St Catherine North Eastern Kerensia Morrison, was also not spared by Champagnie for her part in erroneously stating, during Tuesday’s sitting of the Lower House, that under the Act, persons who commit murder were given automatic 50 per cent reductions off their sentences “because of a guilty plea”.
In rubbishing Morrison’s statements, Champagnie suggested that she should have been the one chosen by the Observer to be mocked in its caricature.
“Perhaps what would have been a more appropriate cartoon should have been a depiction of a Member of Parliament commenting on the Legislation in question without ever having read it since it is this that has set fire to the misinformation! Journalism in whatever form has a duty to educate!” Champagnie declared.
“Firstly, the Legislation in question doesn’t stipulate that persons pleading guilty are automatically entitled to a 50% reduction in sentencing. The Legislation notes that in such cases a person pleading guilty MAY BE considered for 50% discount at the FIRST reasonable opportunity that he or she pleads guilty. This is also subject to other considerations in the way of aggravating factors,” he added.
Champagnie who represented Mavado’s 18-year-old son Dantay Brooks in his murder, arson and illegal possession of a firearm trial, for which he was recently convicted, also pointed to instances where despite pleading guilty, criminals were slapped with the maximum or hefty prison sentences in stark contrast to Morrison’s claims.
“Consequently, the very recent case in which an accused pleaded guilty (and in which the victim was beheaded), a 40-year prison sentence was imposed. Similarly, in another recent case where the person pleaded guilty and was caught on a CC-TV committing the act, the judge imposed a 37 years prison term,” Champagnie argued.
“In fact, the judge commented that the early plea of guilt really didn’t amount to much since the evidence was overwhelming and person really had no choice but to plead guilty,” he added.
He also referred to the declaration made by an agent of the State, the Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn, that there was nothing wrong with the Criminal Justice Act.
“Our Chief Prosecutor also recently indicated publicly that the Legislation in its present form was acceptable,” the former Meadowbrook High School head boy stated.
The attorney was opposed by Instagram user, brad_fromthe876, who declared that the cartoonist was “on point”, and that “whilst the judges have discretion and power to exercise same, the cases mentioned where convicts are given long sentences after pleading guilty are few”.
“What happens often times is 50% reduction, reduction for time spent, reduction for good antecedent/ social enquiry report, reduction for having no previous convictions and 1/3 of the sentence remitted at prison if its a first offender. So the SCALE is tipped in favor of the convict once they plead guilty. And we all know this law was all about clearing backlogs in the court. On point Clovis,” he said.
“@peterchampagnie Oh forgot further reduction after the lawyer’s lengthy plea for mercy before sentencing,” he added.
The intrepid Champagnie, in engaging the commenter, sought to explain further that, under the law, just as there were mitigating factors which were factored in sentencing, so too, were the aggravating ones.
“@brad_fromthe876, I appreciate your response and indeed all the mitigating factors that you have listed are taken into account. However, so too are the aggravating features. These in include: victim impact statements and the deterrent principles,” he said.
“It would be good for you to have a look at the Sentencing Guidelines that was published in 2017. This aside, what was said about an automatic 50% discount for those pleading guilty is not grounded in fact or law,” Champagnie added.