Earl Moxam, Senior Gleaner Writer

Nicholson and Johnson

The Senate yesterday parted company with the House of Representatives and voted against the imposition of a minimum mandatory sentence for a particular breach of the Representation of the People Act.

Clause Four in the bill, approved last week by the Lower House, made provision for a mandatory minimum sentence for the newly created offence of open voting on election day.

Several members of the House of Representatives voiced concerns about this provision last week when the matter came up for debate, arguing that mandatory sentences were not in keeping with modern, enlightened practice. The Jamaican Bar Association also issued a statement expressing strong opposition to the move.

Dr. Peter Phillips, minister responsible for Electoral Affairs, argued in the Lower House however, that it was a convention of Parliament not to go against a unanimous recommendation of the Electoral Commission.

In a rare break with that tradition, however, Senator A.J. Nicholson, Leader of Government Business and Attorney-General, announced he would seek an amendment, dropping this provision for a mandatory minimum sentence.

That was too much for his counterpart, Senator Anthony Johnson, Leader of Opposition Business, to restrain himself. This departure from the long held tradition of abiding by the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and its predecessor, the Electoral Advisory Committee, should not be countenanced, he insisted.

the correct path

Senator Nicholson would not be dissuaded, however, as he held to the view that this was the correct path to take in the circumstances.

"What we wish to say is that the trend across the Commonwealth is that mandatory sentences are frowned upon. That is the Alpha and Omega of the entire thing!"

For once, Senator Johnson would get no support from Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, his usually reliable Opposition colleague. Perhaps reflecting her experience in the court as a trial lawyer, Senator Lightbourne sided with the Attorney-General, her customary nemesis.

"The view and the continuing trend, worldwide, is that mandatory sentences constrain the discretion of our judges. We here pass laws and the judges carry out the effect of the laws," she said.

In carrying out their responsibilities, she said, the judges should be left to determine sentences based on the peculiar circumstances before them. "Perhaps the person who committed the offence might even be someone who is not even too mentally sound," she argued, suggesting that in such circumstances it would be unfair to fetter the judge's discretion.

In the end the bill was passed with the proposed amendment, with Senator Johnson's being the only dissenting vote.

It will now have to return to the House of Representatives for the amendment to be confirmed by that body.