Amendments to Criminal Code and Summary Jurisdiction Act Introduced

Amendments to the Criminal Code Act and the Summary Jurisdiction Act were introduced today.  Cabinet had announced the approval of amending the legislation that would see harsher penalties for crimes of aggravated assault and use of threatening words.  Additionally, approval was given in re-categorizing certain offences.  Minister Francis Fonseca presented the amendments in today’s house meeting.

Francis Fonesca, Minister of Education: “These bills, both of them follow on the recommendations of the National Security Council discussion paper entitled “Threats Made to Security Personnel and State Officials” which was tabled at the National Security Council in June of 2023. Of course, as well as concerns which have been shared publicly by public officers of security threats in the exercise of their duties. As we all know, security personnel, public officers, public officials are inevitably often part of the communities they serve often making them easy targets for assault and abuse and while certain acts provide some support for these officials for example like Section 38 of the Police Act prohibits threats against a member of the police department or a special constable the penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding $1,000. The BDF, the Coast Guard, do not penalize threats made to members of these security agencies. Likewise, there is no specific protection provided for immigration, customs, prison personnel and public officers during the execution of their duties. So, the Criminal Code contains provisions and penalties for aggravated assault upon a person acting as a judicial officer, peace officer, minister of religion in the execution of their duties. However, there are a number of inconsistencies in the prescribed penalties for similar character of offenses under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, for example, regards a threat even a threat of debt, as a misdemeanor. But if the same person were to commit that threat of debt in writing he is liable to five years. And even more puzzling if a person uses actual violence on a judge, magistrate, juror, witness, counsel, agent, prosecutor, in any legal proceedings or inquiry with intent to deter him or her from acting in any manner or uses actual violence to deter a magistrate or peace officer from acting in execution of their duties that person only commits a misdemeanor and is only liable to imprisonment for two years. Such inconsistencies in the penalty provisions need to be corrected. Similarly, in the Summary Jurisdiction Offenses Act a threat to a person is considered a petty offense along the line of washing an animal in the street or throwing things in a canal. The reality, Madam Speaker, is that many security-related personnel, public officers, teachers, public officials, receive threats on a regular basis while performing their duties. So there is a need to address this issue.”

The amendments to the Criminal Code come on the heels of public prosecutors complaining that they are often threatened by criminal defendants.