Judiciary Not – By Kisean Joseph
Judiciary Not Blame Firearms
A criminal defense attorney is defending the judiciary against recent criticism over firearms sentencing, arguing that Parliament’s own legislation is the root of the problem.
Wendell Alexander says the fallout stems from a Court of Appeal decision involving five persons convicted of firearms offenses, in which it was determined that the Chief Magistrate — then the Senior Magistrate — wrongly applied the principle of totality in sentencing, resulting in all appellants getting sentences higher than what they should have received.
He says criticism directed at the judiciary in the aftermath was unfair.
“If Parliament wants a person to be in prison for a maximum of five years, then Parliament should change the law and put it to eight years or nine years,” Alexander said. “Parliament cannot have the maximum penalty of five years and expects that the Court will apply the five years, because that’s not how it works.”
Alexander also took aim at public remarks made by the country’s Prime Minister about the judiciary, saying the head of government was not properly advised by his Attorney General.
He pointed to a specific legislative gap to support his position. While Parliament increased the maximum penalty for firearms offenses from two to five years in October 2024, Alexander noted that a provision under Section 96, Subsection 3 of the Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act — amended in 2018 — remains on the books, still allowing magistrates to impose a fine rather than a custodial sentence.
He argued that if Parliament’s genuine intention is for offenders to receive five-year custodial sentences, the legislated maximum must be set higher — at eight, nine, or even ten years — so that once sentencing guidelines account for mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, medical conditions, and assistance rendered to police, the court is still compelled to arrive at five years.
“The blame is to be cast right at the feet of the legislation itself and not on the judiciary,” he said.
Alexander also challenged the practice of routing all firearms cases through a single magistrate, describing it as sending the wrong message about the competence of the wider bench.
“One magistrate in Antigua and Barbuda should not be the only magistrate sentencing persons and doing firearms cases,” he said. “It sends the wrong message, and you’re giving the impression and the connotation that the other magistrates are incompetent or too lenient.”
He further noted that the magistrate made serious errors across several cases, and that some prisoners currently at the prison may not appeal, meaning those errors could go uncorrected.
To address the systemic issues, Alexander is calling on the Attorney General to establish a dedicated criminal court, modeled on systems in St Vincent, St Lucia, and Montserrat, that consolidates all criminal matters — from larceny and breaking and entering to murder — under a single framework.
He also warned against the continued piecemeal amendment of criminal legislation, saying the approach has left police officers unaware of procedural changes and vulnerable to challenges from well-prepared defense attorneys.
Alexander said a comprehensive overhaul of the criminal justice system would benefit law enforcement, the magistracy, and the judiciary alike — and noted that the upcoming introduction of a law degree program at The University of the West Indies Five Islands Campus presents an opportunity for Antigua and Barbuda to bring its legislation up to a higher regional standard.
