As we showed you in our last segment, the gun law came up in the House of Representatives, and there appears to be bi partisan consensus to move forward with reform. But, the Leader of the Opposition confessed that he doesn't know how Gino Peck's mandatory Prison sentence became a 600 dollar fine. The Prime Minister's body language when he said that seemed to suggest that he felt the same way.
Well, for clarification, we go back to Monday's statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Cheryl-Lynn Vidal.
Here now are her exact comments from Monday, unedited to properly reflect her position.
She said quote,
"I also want to take this opportunity to address the issue of Section 54 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act which was invoked by the defence in Peck's sentencing hearing on Friday, as I have been asked about it by all and sundry today; I heard Senior Counsel's interview in which he mentioned that I had drawn it to his attention and I also heard it being characterized as a "surrender".
The defence was urging the Court to impose the mandatory minimum sentence and thereafter suspend it. The Honourable Chief Magistrate was suggesting that the mandatory sentence be imposed but that Peck then be immediately released on bail. Her Honour then asked for Counsel and the Crown to discuss the issue and stood the matter down. I indicated to both Counsel for the defence that I had not been able to find a section that empowered the magistrate to suspend a sentence of that nature, but that I had looked at Section 54 of the SJ(P)Act and thought that it was at least arguable. I provided both with copies of the Section and we discussed its application. I informed them that I did not have a firm position on the matter as I did not have the opportunity to properly research it."
She continued:
"When the Magistrate returned to Court, Mr. Sampson SC directed Her Honour's attention to Section 54 and provided a copy. The Magistrate read the Section and immediately assumed jurisdiction under it and fined Peck, which of course, she was entitled to do, if she was of the view that it applied. There were no submissions made, no arguments on the matter."
Email
Print