Criminal Law Miscellaneous Bill 2025: Criminals wearing masks to now face maximum $750,000 fine, 3-year jail sentence

By Jarryl Bryan

Persons who wear masks while committing crimes, will soon be catching additional penalties, including the possibility of a three-year jail sentence, as the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government looks to amend the Criminal Law Offences Act and Summary Jurisdiction Act to deter the committal of crimes.
Monday saw the passage of the Criminal Law (Offences) Miscellaneous Bill 2025, which amends and beefs up the principal act and received bipartisan support from both sides of the house. According to Attorney General (AG) and Senior Counsel Anil Nandlall, the amendment will significantly increase the punishment for wearing masks or disguises while committing crimes.

For instance, the $7500 to $15,000 fine for this offence has been changed to a $50,000 to $750,000 fine. Additionally, the amendment to the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act will see the jail sentences for this offence being increased from 18 months to three years. In his explanation, Nandlall made reference to the recent riots around the city and country as many of the perpetrators were masked.
“Recently, our country has experienced a surge in a certain type of criminal activity, committed by persons wearing a mask or other disguise, which has posed a significant threat to public safety,” the AG said.
“Generally, while facial coverings may be lawfully justified in specific context, such as in the interest of public health or religion, their misuse for criminal purposes undermine public safety and security. To address this issue, the Criminal Law (Offences) Miscellaneous Bill 2025 prohibits the wearing of masks or disguises to commit an offence specified under the Act.”
Nandlall referenced other countries who have taken similar steps, including Canada, certain jurisdictions in the United States (US) and even St Lucia, where the wearing of a mask while committing an offence is considered an aggravating factor by the courts.
This is measure, Nandlall noted, which will help law enforcement to more swiftly apprehend perpetrators. And while he emphasised that wearing facial coverings in and of itself is not illegal, he warned that those who do so while committing crimes will be sternly dealt with by the court.
“One of the primary objectives of the bill is deterrence. When individuals are aware that concealing their identity will result in additional charges and harsher penalties, they may be less likely to engage in such behaviour.”
“Concealing one’s identity emboldens offenders, while reducing the risk of being identified or apprehended… this bill is therefore both reasonable and necessary to deter criminal behaviour, enhance public safety and aid law enforcement,” he said.

Support
Other Members of Parliament (MP) supporting the bill included Home Affairs Minister, Robeson Benn, PPP/C MP Sanjeev Datadin and Alliance For Change (AFC) MP Khemraj Ramjattan, who compared the amendments to similar aggravating circumstances like the use of a weapon while committing a crime.
While making it clear that she supported the bill, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Parliamentarian Amanza Walton urged in her presentation that the Government go a step further and seek to regulate the use of face coverings by private security firms.
“I want to make some recommendations. I want to strongly recommend the revision of and reissuing of regulations to regulate private security firms. And they must contain the prohibition of face coverings of private security personnel in public spaces.”
“Two, they must require visible identification for all operatives. And three, we must establish a public registry and oversight mechanism to investigate complaints and ensure compliance with human rights standards,” she further recommended.
However, Nandlall in his rebuttal made it clear that security officers are not exempt from the law, as those who misuse their powers can also be prosecuted. He noted that nothing in the bill excludes security officers from being culpable for breaking the law while masked.
“If any member of any security force, misuses their powers, then the law will apply to them. It will apply to them. There’s no caveat. There is no restriction of liability or culpability in relation to them. So, the bill addresses your concerns,” Nandlall said. In late April, following the post mortem on the body of 11-year-old Adrianna Younge whose tragic death sparked protests for justice, these demonstrations were subsequently hijacked and turned into widespread acts of terror and looting during coordinated unrest across the country.
A prevalent observation during the violent protests, were the masked criminal elements who sought to cause public terror by blocking roadways, burning debris, destroying public and private infrastructure, looting, and causing harm to innocent individuals. As a result, many businesses were closed the very next day.
Following swift police operations and nationwide arrests, over 100 persons were arrested in relation to the unrest, with many brought before various Magistrates to face indictable charges of terrorism under the Criminal Law (Offences) Act.