Hon. Jeremiah Norbert Presents The Plea Bargaining Bill

Mr. Speaker, the bill before this honorable house is the plea bargaining bill and I want to start by making it abundantly clear that the plea bargaining bill is not about reducing punishment for criminals, Mr. Speaker, but it is about improving the state's ability to secure accountability, to obtain cooperation, to protect victims, and to make the justice system work more effectively. And usually, Mr. Speaker, when we speak of the justice system, you hear the words effectiveness and efficiency being mentioned. And the idea of the plea bargaining bill is to ensure that we can get to a space where we are more effective and more efficient. Mr. Speaker, we must not confuse efficiency with leniency. A justice system that takes 10 years to bring a case to conclusion is not necessarily a strong justice system. Sometimes justice delayed is justice is justice weakened or uh we know all of us know how the adage goes, justice denied. Justice delayed is justice denied. So, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for plea bargaining and post-sentence plea bargaining to enable the DPP, the director of public prosecution, and an accused person or convict that person, whether represented by an attorney at law or unrepresented, to engage in plea discussions and enter plea agreements in relation to the prosecution of a summary offense, an indictable offense, or an offense triable summarily or on indictment. Indictment, sorry. And although plea discussions, one may argue, Mr. Speaker, that plea discussions may occur in practice and as a former police officer, I can attest to the fact that there were instances where a defendant when brought before the court would have pleaded guilty in the first instance. Probably immediately thereafter the magistrate in her wisdom may decide to give them a one-third discount and probably probably in the time when the Attorney General the Attorney General at the time was a defendant, he used to represent quite a few defendants in this country. When he brought forward the mitigating factors, the magistrate may decide to even go further, Mr. Speaker, and discount the person's sentence even further. However, Mr. Speaker, although we've seen plea bargaining happening practices in the show, what we don't have is a statutory framework governing plea bargaining. And what this bill is intended to do is to give us that framework. And the bill addresses the gap by establishing a comprehensive and structured process that is subject to judicial oversight. Very important words, Mr. Speaker, judicial oversight. Mr. Speaker, the bill also authorizes the DPP to enter plea bargaining with an accused person and post-sentence plea bargaining with a convicted person in specified circumstances. And under the bill, plea bargaining may be undertaken where an accused person accepts responsibility for an offense, agrees to cooperate with the prosecution, or agrees to provide evidence in criminal proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I want to just repeat that part and I'm going to expound on it a little bit. The bill authorizes the DPP to enter plea bargaining with an accused person and post-sentence plea bargaining with a convicted person in specified circumstances. Under the bill, plea bargaining may be undertaken where an accused person accepts responsibility for an offense, agrees to cooperate with the prosecution, or agrees to provide evidence in criminal proceedings. So, Speaker, what happens here is essentially is, you know, in jurisdictions like ours where we have suffered from gang violence, we have suffered from firearm-related offenses, usually the police officer will tell you, Mr. Speaker, even when they do their investigation, that the person who they usually apprehend for the offense may not be the mastermind behind that particular offense. Sometimes the man walking the streets with the gun in his hand, he just rent the firearm. Or his partner just allow him to hold that. Or the bossman has made it available to him. Mr. Speaker, what the plea bargaining bill does, it allows for an individual, if caught by the police, and decides to go into a plea bargain, they I don't use the word rat out, but they can give information. I don't want to call them stool pigeon or informer, Mr. Speaker, but it allows for them to be able to give information. And if the the information can be deemed truthful and it can lead to further breakthroughs for the police, Mr. Speaker, that person may be in a position to get a reduced sentence. The bill allows for that person to be in a position to be to get a reduced sentence. What it does for us now, Mr. Speaker, it now creates opportunity for the police who put often times most of their resources into investigation, now put them in a position where this bill gives them another tool to be able to utilize, to be able to break down criminal gangs. We have quite a bit of organized crime. So, now they have a tool, Mr. Speaker, that allows them to be able to trade information, concrete information that may lead to further breakthroughs for a reduction in sentence. Um and as much as I may speak about reduction in sentence, Mr. Speaker, I want to say here that it does not mean automatically that because you give the police information, that if you were going to be sentenced for 10 years, that you get a sentence for 2 years. That's not how it works. Um the court and the judge will have the last say in what happens. Mr. Speaker, the bill also permits post-sentence plea bargaining, where a convicted person provides or undertakes to provide substantial assistance in the prevention, the detention, the detection, or investigation of criminal activity, or in criminal proceedings. So, more than just someone who has been arrested and charged, Mr. Speaker, the bill also makes provision for someone who has been convicted. So, you go to court, you've already been convicted, you're at the bodily correctional facility, as Nintus put it, some people find Jesus in jail. So, if they have a small blue Bible, you figure you find Jesus, and you want to give some information, even after you're convicted, that the bill makes provision where you can go into a plea bargain, and you may get a reduction in sentence based on the quality of information that you provide the police or the investigator with. The bill is intended to facilitate the efficient administration of justice while maintaining appropriate safeguards. It recognizes that cooperation from offenders may assist law enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting serious criminal activity, and that in appropriate circumstances, such cooperation may justify sentencing consideration. So, again, Mr. Speaker, as I would have mentioned earlier, the The recognizes that cooperation from offenders, persons who have been arrested, persons who have been charged, persons who have been convicted, they sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they are the keys to unlock even greater doors in terms of investigation. They have the keys to unlock bigger doors. Mr. Speaker, investigators will tell you that there is no information as good as that of what we call, sometimes, informants. They sometimes participate They can lead you and they can allow you to have the greatest breakthroughs, um, in your fight against crime. So, the bill understands that and it allows for there to be cooperation from offenders. Because we know that this cooperation can lead This cooperation can lead to either a great greater breakthroughs, Mr. Speaker, and it can justify a reduction in sentences. Mr. Speaker, the bill also creates a framework for which cooperation may be taken in account by the court while preserving judicial independence and public confidence in criminal in the criminal justice system. A central feature of the bill is judicial oversight. A plea agreement does not automatically take effect upon being reached between the DPP and accused person. I think that's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we understand that and I will break that down a little further. It is not a situation whereby someone just decides, "Okay, um, I'm just going to go into a plea." There are processes that before you can go into a a plea bargain, there are certain processes and certain parameters that one must meet. A plea agreement does not automatically take effect upon being reached between the DPP and accused person. Every plea agreement must be presented before the court at a plea agreement hearing. So, it is not a situation where there's going to be a war of words between the DPP and the accused. That is not what what what the bill is intended to do. Even if there's an agreement, the agreement must be brought before the court. I think the bill allows for it to be heard in open court. So, there will be after the agreement happens, it will be the facts will be presented before court and a judge or magistrate will have a final say in what happens. And it's not automatic that the agreement that you had with the Director of Public Prosecution or the prosecutor is going to be accepted by the court when you go there. Every plea agreement must be presented before the court at a plea agreement hearing and the court must be satisfied that the accused person understands the plea agreement and its consequences. Very important as well, Mr. Speaker. The court must satisfy itself that it was not imposed on the accused, that the accused didn't take advantage of the accused. And I think in section six, they make specific mention of the protections and the safeguards for even the accused, Mr. Speaker. I think it mentions in section six that where an accused person where an accused person enters plea bargaining without representation, the court shall, before proving plea bargaining, satisfy itself that the accused person understands his or her rights under subsection one, is fit to enter plea bargaining and understands the nature and consequence of plea bargaining. So, it's not a situation where it's going to be imposed on you. The court must satisfy itself that the person who has entered into that bargain understands their rights, they understand the consequences of the decision, they understand that when I said when I say, "Okay, I want to be I want to enter into a plea bargain, these are the consequences." The court must satisfy itself of these things, Mr. Speaker. The court must be satisfied, as I mentioned, that the accused person understands the plea agreement and its consequences, the plea agreement was entered into voluntarily and that the proposed plea adequately reflects the gravity of the probable conduct. Importantly, the bill expressly provides that a plea agreement is not binding on the court. The court retains the authority as I would have said earlier. Even if the DPP and the accused or the convicted person goes into a plea arrangement or some bargaining arrangement, Mr. Speaker, the court still has the final say. The court retains the authority to accept or to reject the plea and to determine the appropriate sentence in accordance with law. Mr. Speaker, the bill also contains important safeguards for accused persons. The court is required to inform an accused person of their legal rights, including the right to legal representation and the availability of legal aid. Additional protections are provided for accused persons who elect to proceed without legal representation. These provisions are intended to ensure that participation in plea bargaining is informed and voluntary. Mr. Speaker, I've mentioned a lot about the accused, a lot about the convicted, a lot about the role of the the prosecution and the office of the DPP. And one may ask, with all of this, where does the victim come in all of that? I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to announce that thinking section 10 free and section 16, the bill contains important safeguards for victims. Victims are afforded an opportunity to make representation regarding a proposed plea agreement and to provide victim impact statements. And a victim impact statement must be provided to the Department of Probation and Parole Services by and it says it does not say says must be provided. It does not give you the option of whether or not, Mr. Speaker. So, there is safeguard for for the victims. Under section 13, says where the director of public prosecution shall not reach a plea agreement unless he or she has an opportunity to make representation regarding the contents of the plea arrange agreement. So, it says the director of public prosecution shall not reach a plea agreement unless he or she has informed and given, in the case of a victim who is a child, a parent or guardian of the victim, in the case of a victim who is an adult, the victim an opportunity to make representation regarding the contents of the plea agreement. So, it is not something that's happening behind closed doors um and that the victim will not be aware. The victim will be given an opportunity to make representation regarding the contents of the plea arrangement. I think that's very important, Mr. Speaker, that the victim is being considered in all of that. And in section 16, Mr. Speaker, another safeguard for the victim makes mention that the director of public prosecution who reaches a plea agreement shall inform, in the case of the victim who is a child, a parent guardian of the victim, in the case of the victim who is an adult, the victim of the substance and reason for the plea agreement unless compelling reasons, including likelihood of serious harm to the accused person or another person requires otherwise. So, the DPP is mandated to keep the victim or the office of the DPP, director of public prosecution, is mandated to ensure that the victim is kept in the know and in the loop about what is happening. So, it is not a situation where we go behind closed doors and things happen and the victim just gets to know on the television or some other place through public through social media that this person has had a reduction in sentence because they chose the option of a plea bargain. Mr. Speaker, the interest the beautiful authorizes the court to impose a lesser sentence where an accused person provides substantial assistance for the prosecution and law enforcement authorities. In determining whether a reduced sentence is appropriate, the court must consider a number of factors, including the significance and usefulness of the assistance, the truthfulness of the information provided by the extent of the cooperation, and any risk faced by the accused person as a result of that cooperation. The decision whether to impose a lesser sentence remains entirely with the discretion of the court. Another significant feature of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the establishment of a framework for post-sentence plea bargaining. The bill recognize meaningful cooperation may arise after sentence, and I would have mentioned that sometimes when someone has been convicted while spending time at Bodden Lee defined Jesus, and they decide, "Okay, this is the time that I want to speak." And they come out and they want to confess certain things that can lead and that information can lead um to serious breakthroughs for law enforcement, and if they decide at that time, the bill actually makes provision for them post-sentence or whilst after conviction, the bill makes provision for them to be able to enter into a plea bargain. Mr. Speaker, in this regard, the bill creates well, and this regard a very important the bill creates a limited exception to the doctrine of functus functus officio. And ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, you know, one knows that when a magistrate or judge, or any kind of arbiter, decides or gives their verdict on a matter, that matter is considered dealt with, and we don't return to it. However, this bill allows for a little exception in that regard, a little exception in that regard. So, even if someone has been convicted, even if they've been sentenced, it allows for them to be able to go into a plea bargain if they have good information that can be utilized. So, it allows for once the court has imposed a sentence, the court has no authority to revise the sentence, but the bill permits the court in specified circumstances and upon application by the DPP to review a sentence, notwithstanding the doctrine of functus officio. This mechanism is intended to provide sentencing consideration for substantial rendered after sentence and to encourage cooperation that may assist in the prevention, detection, and prosecution of serious criminal activity. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that every one of us here knows someone who has complained about the judicial system, about the length of time it takes to get a matter to go through the system. Sometimes the victims, unfortunately, have time to die before they can even get a verdict, which I think is unfair. And through no fault of ours here, Mr. Speaker, no fault of ours of those of us sitting around the table. And I think only this morning, I would have seen a post, a Facebook post from the Prime Minister of Antigua, Gaston Browne, where he mentioned about firearms, that they've gone to the court, they've increased penalties for firearms. However, those charged with the responsibility to administer sometimes and they could not put as much as they would have put a a ceiling, 15 years imprisonment. They were told that they cannot put they cannot say 10 years below 10 years, but not above 15 years. So, the below the the threshold, they are to leave the below open, which allows for the independent body, the judiciary, to come in and still, notwithstanding that, you may come in, Mr. Speaker, and I always I always have a little bit of difficulty with that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe when parliamentarians come to this honorable house, and when the Prime Minister took a decision to come here and increase the penalties for firearm offenses and firearm-related offenses, it's because he's expressing the sentiments of the general public. So, there's an outcry in the public. The public is asking for stiffer penalties. And if we come here and we say we're going to pass laws, and but however, AG can probably guide me here. I'm not I'm not the a legal mind, but from my understanding is as much as we can put a ceiling and say that we can put a maximum fine of $100,000, we can put is or we can put a maximum fine of 25 years, you cannot say that you can put no less than 24 years. So, persons were going when sentences was happening and persons were were getting 3 years or what we deem a slap on the wrist, maybe 3 months in prison, and we come here with the idea or with the hope that what we say here is going to be taken is going to be considered and we're going to see reflected in the judiciary, Mr. Speaker, as much as they're independent. We are we coming here to pass laws and we pass laws for a reason. Um this morning, Mr. Gaston Browne made a Facebook post to say that they've increased um they've made firearm offenses. They've increased penalties for firearm offenses. However, that does that has not seemed to work because the judiciary still sentence the same way that they sentence before they increased the penalties. So, it's not really meeting the mandate. So, them coming to pass laws, Mr. Speaker, and I don't say that to call on the judiciary or to say anything to them because I respect their position and I understand the the the position of independence, but I also think that what we do here is a direct reflection of the sentiments of the people of Mayaro North, of then Rio Claro North, of then Rio Claro South, of Gros Islet, of La Brea. We represent the interests of the people and we come and we make a presentation on their behalf with the hope to phrase that country by itself. So so So, Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes the right of appeal in relation to If you go through the entire process and you're not happy, the bill does make provision for the rights of appeal in relation to plea agreements, convictions, sentences, post-sentence plea agreements, and decisions made on sentence review. In addition, the bill contains provisions relating to the sealing of records, confidentiality obligations, confidentiality obligations, and the inadmissibility of plea bargaining and post-sentence plea bargaining as evidence in criminal or civil court proceedings. So, in essence, Mr. Speaker, what the bill does, it says even if you decide to enter a plea in into a bargain a plea bargain, Mr. Speaker, and you and the DPP went There's a prescribed form, all the information was recorded on the form, and before the matter was brought in open court, you decide that you no longer want to be part of that plea bargain. That information that was recorded is not the the DPP is not able to use it against you in future. So, if the trial has to continue, the DPP is not able to use that information and to say that, "Okay, during the plea bargaining, you would have said X, Y, and Z." More or less admitting to guilt. Um and now to say that you're guilty, the DPP would not be in a position to use it. That would be deemed inadmissible in a court of law. So, the bill And these provisions are intended to preserve the integrity of the plea bargaining process and encourage frank and meaningful plea discussions. In summary, the bill establishes a modern statutory framework for plea bargaining and post-sentence plea bargaining in St. Lucia. Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I think um I can say again that we are not simply asking criminals to plead guilty in exchange for less time, but what we are saying essentially is that we are creating a legal mechanism through which the state can obtain information. Very important is the obtaining of information, evidence, and testimony that can help prosecute other offenders. It can really help us in our efforts to deal with organized crime, um drug trafficking, can really help us in in dealing with these these type of crimes, Mr. Speaker. And again, ensure that the victims are not forgotten. I would have made mention of section, I think, 10, 13, and 16 that makes provisions for the victim, gives consideration to the victims and the rights of the victims. And an offender who breaks the agreement can face consequences. Also makes provision to ensure that if an offender who breaks the provision, so not withstanding that you may go into some plea bargaining, if when we go to if when the matter is go is goes to open court, um one decides that here's what, I no longer or they they they breach what they would have said, what would happen now is that the bill makes provision so that the trial can continue. So it doesn't mean that because you went into a plea bargain that the trial immediately discontinues. No, no, no. If you go to open court and you and you breach what you said, then the trial is allowed there is provision to allow the trial to continue and you'll be able to face the full brunt of the law. Mr. Speaker, and the bill gives the court discretion to impose a lesser sentence based on the offender's assistance and requires the court to consider the factors including the significance, very important, Mr. Speaker, and don't think because this say plea bargaining that you will come there and just give the court any pash pash or give the the the investigator any pash pash information and think, "Oh, no, no, no. That's not how it's going to work at all, Mr. Speaker." The The information is going to be looked at. They look at the the validity of the information, the truthfulness of the information, the significance of it, and the completeness and reliability of that information, and timeliness of the assistance. And timeliness because, you know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes prisoners or accused individuals or convicted individuals, Mr. Speaker, always think that they can find a trick or some way around the system. So, someone may decide maybe while the after they've been convicted, as what? You know, "I just remember, you know, in 2015 me and my partner did something and they figure you want to give me that information." Timeliness is also a factor that's going to be considered. You can't come here and give us old outdated information that cannot lead to anything and think that is going to you just going to get a reduction in your sentence. That's not how it's going to work at all at all at all. Correct? So, and the question before us is not whether criminals should be punished. I think we all agree that they should be punished. The question is whether the state should have every lawful and effective tool available to ensure that criminals are held accountable and that we get to the wider criminal enterprise behind individuals who have been caught. And again, Mr. Speaker, I say from my own experience, I can tell you as a policeman, often time the money you finally find them is just a hitman. He's just doing a job, but the real masterminds, they some of them they they they live in I don't want to say the northern oligarchy, but they live in they live they live in big houses. They live in big houses. They have good jobs. Um and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the only way that we can truly break through these networks is by giving a an accused or convicted person an avenue whereby they can give information, quality information, reliable information for a reduction in sentence. And the bill provides again for those who have already been convicted so that they too can be given an opportunity. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that this is not something that is just unique to St. Lucia. I think it's timely. In Jamaica, they've been utilizing They've been utilizing legislation of this type. And what it has done has allowed for matters to be able to be dealt with in an expeditious way, Mr. Speaker, not undermining the judicial system. And as I'm speaking about matters being dealt with in an expeditious way, I think it's also an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for me to say to that the Prime Minister in his wisdom when he decided to launch a backlog court, again another step to helping us deal with some of the situations, the backlog that we've had in the system. And this is one tool that will help us deliver our system. What I can tell you is from the establishment of the backlog court, the director of Bordelais, I spoke to him only yesterday. And he would have said to me, "Minister, you know that the backlog court is working wonders for us at Bordelais. Wonders." And prior Prior to the establishment of that court, we had a situation where we had in excess of 358 inmates on remand. And we had less inmates serving their sentences. What the backlog court has done, Mr. Speaker, it has brought us almost on par in terms of the numbers of inmates who are penal and those on remand. So, right now we are almost on par, and at the rate we're going, it looks like very soon we'll have more penal and less remand. So, those individuals on remand who have been waiting for their trial, they their trials are happening. I'm very happy with the rate at which it's happening. I must compliment the staff um and the people who work with the the the backlog court. I want to thank Prime Minister for his wisdom in establishing such a court. It has really helped us. And me being Minister of Home Affairs, I can tell you the impact of that. When we have inmates who are on remand, it's a lot more difficult because we have to assume innocence. So, we have to treat them as if they're innocent. So, it becomes very difficult as to what can we do with them in terms of rehabilitation and what we cannot do. And as part of our crime prevention, as part of our crime prevention, Monday rehabilitation takes center stage as well, Mr. Speaker. So, we can bring in those in inmates who have already been convicted, who have already been sentenced. We can bring them into some of the rehabilitation programs. However, those individuals who are on remand, it's a little more difficult in terms of navigating with them because by you putting them in a rehabilitation program, it's like you're already assuming that they're guilty. So, it becomes a little difficult and a little tricky to navigate. And I'm happy with the work of the backlog court. It's actually helping me as a Minister of Home Affairs. It's helping the the Belize Correctional Facility, those individuals involved in rehabilitation. And speaking of Belize, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes we speak of the Belize Correctional Facility, people think of just the punitive measures and punishing people and they You know, I can tell you Mr. Speaker, I visited the Belize Correctional Facility uh about a week and a half ago with the Minister of Education, Honorable Danny Boutcher, the member for Cayo South. And Mr. Speaker, it would amaze you to know that the inmates at the facility are the ones So, they are bakers and they're the ones um preparing their own meals, chefs preparing their own meals. The uniforms that you see the inmates wearing, they're the ones they are tailors, so they're the ones sewing their uniforms themselves. There was a time when the Ministry of Education used to allow a lot of the furniture repairs to be done by the inmates there and they will tell you that some of the best quality repairs that they get comes from the Belize Correctional Facility. As we speak, Mr. Speaker, we have a quota of 40 inmates doing automotive repairs um engines. So, they're and they're working on both regular and hybrid engines. 40 of them now. And the idea is to be able to work with the Ministry, as the Prime Minister has said, we can't be working in silos. So, the idea is to work with the Ministry of Education to ensure that these people can be CVQ qualified and hopefully upon being released from prison, these individuals can now have a skill, have a trade, and not just have a skill and a trade. While they're there at the Belize facility, we want to get them in the habit of working, in the habit of being punctual, in the habit and we have those who are going to get qualified in land skipping as well. And the idea is to get them qualified, get them reintegrated into society so that we can reduce the rate of recidivism in this country. We cannot continue to have a country where we have a small country of 180,000, close to 200,000 people, and we have almost 600 individuals at the Belize Correctional Facility. That that that that is unacceptable. Um I think these people can be They can be working and contributing meaningfully to the economic development of the country. So, while they're there, we're going to work with them to prepare them so that when they go out and we're going to provide them with Prime Minister provided the funding even when Trump decided to put a stop work program, he decided to continue the funding. So, we're able to get these people to We provide them with psychosocial support, career guidance training, life skill training, all sorts of CBT CBT. It's called cognitive behavior therapy. All sorts of things happening there, Mr. Speaker, just to be able to prepare these individuals so that when they leave the bodily correctional facility, because the truth is again, I'm not one to say that I have the softest of hearts, but I understand that sometimes life can deal you a bad hand, a bad card, and we can anyone can find themselves in prime minister somebody that says there are a lot of people that those individuals at bodily are those that they've already caught. There are a lot of people there are more people walking outside that they've not caught that if they were to be caught that they would have been at bodily, too, but sometimes um we try to behave a little bit hypocritical because nobody knows our sins. And when we look at individuals who've gone to the facility, we treat them as outcasts, but I'll tell you that there's somebody's brother, somebody's sister, somebody's child, and we need to even as a society, we need to rethink how we deal with individuals when they've been re re um when they've been incarcerated. And it's important part is a very important part of the integ- the reintegration process, how receptive society is to them. So, again, Mr. Speaker, not to stray too much because I'm doing with plea bargaining bill like here, it's important that I made mention of these things. I want to encourage members to support the bill. Um I want to encourage members to give their support to this bill as it serves as an important tool for the judicial system. It serves as an important tool to help in the expeditious um dealing with matters. We can be matters can be dealt with in an expeditious manner. It provides an avenue for accused individuals to be able to cooperate with investigators so that we can break down criminal networks. We can deal with narco-trafficking. We can deal with um gun gun and gang violence. We can be able We can get information to be able to deal with that. And again, we've seen the success that that has a system like that has brought to places like even in the United States. When you watch movies, Mr. Speaker, you see it all the time where when individuals are caught, they bring them into a room and they decide they can decide for their freedom or for a lesser sentence. they decide to go into some sort of deal and every day we see these things being depicted in movies and whatnot. What we're doing is bringing it to reality in this country. So, again, I want to thank the Prime Minister as he is the Minister of Justice for and the AG and his team for bringing and showing that we can bring this bill before the house and I want to encourage members to support the bill as this bill will go a long way in helping us reform our judicial system. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.