PHILIPSBURG–In a groundbreaking legal battle, a traveller who was previously denied entry to Sint Maarten has successfully challenged the decision, leading to a significant ruling from the Appellate Court. This case has set a precedent that could reshape immigration procedures on the island.

The story begins with a traveller who had overstayed her previous visit to Sint Maarten. Upon her return a month later, she was denied entry at the airport by an immigration officer. The officer, acting on behalf of the Minister of Justice, cited the previous overstay as one of the reasons for the denial. Up until this case, such denials had never been challenged in court. The Court of First Instance had routinely declared itself unauthorized to handle appeals against these decisions.

Attorney Brenda Brooks, took a bold step by reviewing the denial decision and filing an appeal at the Court of First Instance, following the procedures for administrative cases. On July 31, 2023, the Court of First Instance ruled that it was unauthorized to handle the appeal, asserting that the decision to deny entry by the Minister of Justice was not subject to appeal.

Refusing to back down, Attorney Brooks escalated the case to the Appellate Court. On June 12, 2024, the Appellate Court delivered a landmark ruling. The court nullified the decision of the Court of First Instance, validated the appeal, and overturned the initial denial of entry by the Minister of Justice.

The crux of the argument was centered on the legal authority to deny entry at the ports of Sint Maarten. By law, this authority is bestowed upon the Minister of Justice, who can delegate it to others. However, it was revealed that no such delegation, or mandate, existed for the immigration officers at the border. This critical oversight was previously highlighted in reports by the Law Enforcement Council.

The Appellate Court concurred with Attorney Brooks’ argument that the decision to deny entry is, by law, appealable. Moreover, it was confirmed by the Minister of Justice’s legal representative that no mandate regulation was in place to authorize immigration officers to make such decisions. This led the court to conclude that, in the absence of a proper mandate, the immigration officer lacked the authority to deny entry to the traveller.

This ruling carries significant implications for future cases. It underscores the need for the Minister of Justice to establish clear regulations regarding the delegation of authority to immigration officers. Historically, the Director of Immigration held such a mandate, but it was withdrawn in 2017, and no replacement was instituted.

While the Minister of Justice’s representative argued that it is inherently part of an immigration officer’s role to deny entry, the court’s decision firmly established that such authority must be explicitly granted by the Minister of Justice. Without this mandate, immigration officers are not authorized to deny entry to travellers, ensuring that such decisions are subject to legal scrutiny and appeals.

This case not only highlights the importance of adhering to legal mandates, but also emphasizes the role of vigilant legal advocacy in upholding the rule of law. Attorney Brenda Brooks’ unwavering commitment to justice has not only secured a victory for her client, but has also paved the way for more transparent and accountable immigration procedures in Sint Maarten.

PHILIPSBURG–Wow! It’s incredible to think that 15 years ago, I embarked on a journey to serve the St. Maarten community as an attorney. On June 1, 2009, Brooks & Associates was born, and it has been an extraordinary journey ever since.

As a child, I dreamt of becoming one of two things: a teacher or an attorney. Today, I am fortunate enough to fulfill both dreams. I am proud to say that Brooks & Associates is built on a foundation of education. We prioritize the growth and learning of our attorneys in training, our staff, and our clients because we believe that knowledge is power.

Over the past fifteen years, our office has passionately advocated for our clients, providing the highest quality service, no matter how complex or routine the case. We have facilitated the training of numerous students through our summer programs for various high schools, and some of these bright minds have even gone on to law school. It fills me with immense pride to see that some of our cases have set precedents in Jurisprudence, becoming examples for future legal interpretations. Moreover, we have provided pro bono advocacy for individuals who could not afford legal representation, ensuring that justice is accessible to all.

As we look to the future, our commitment to making a positive impact on our community and country remains unwavering. Brooks & Associates will continue to stand as a beacon of hope and justice. Our legacy is one of service, education, and unwavering dedication to the people of St. Maarten. Long after I am gone, Brooks & Associates will still be known as a firm “for the people.”

This journey has been about more than just practicing law; it has been about empowering others, fostering growth, and giving back to the community that has supported us. I am deeply grateful for the trust and confidence placed in us by our clients, and I look forward to many more years of service and advocacy.

Thank you for being a part of this incredible journey.

With heartfelt gratitude,

Brenda Brooks
Founder
Brooks & Associates

PHILIPSBURG–Just one day after standing trial in the Court of First Instance on armed robbery and kidnapping charges, a man M.K.A. (33) was released from the Point Blanche prison on Thursday although the verdict is not due for another three weeks.

  However, A., who has been living in St. Maarten without a residence permit, was immediately handed over to Immigration and Border Protection Services (IBPS). He is set to be deported to his native Trinidad and Tobago today, Friday.

  A.’s lawyer Brenda Brooks confirmed her client’s release and pending deportation to The Daily Herald on Thursday evening.

  “Myself and my colleague Thaisa Heymans, along with the rest of the team at Brooks and Associates, are truly happy with the judge’s decision to order the immediate release of our client,” Brooks said in an invited comment. “After dedicating the time and energy in a case and getting positive results, it reassures us that it is all worthwhile to do what we do best, and that is to fight for people’s rights.”

  A. and co-defendant S.E.O.C. (30) are accused of a total of eight crimes, which include armed robbery, kidnapping, fencing, assault, gun possession and threatening with a weapon. The latter was originally charged as attempted murder/manslaughter, but the prosecutor said during Wednesday’s trial that he did not consider the homicide charge proven.

  C. and A. denied any involvement during the nine-hour-long trial.

  Brooks and C.’s lawyer Shaira Bommel pleaded for full acquittals, arguing that there is a lack of legal and convincing evidence for conviction.

  Considering the defendants guilty on all counts, the prosecutor had demanded a 12-year prison sentence, with a deduction of time served in pre-trial detention.

  Although the judge will render a verdict in this case on March 6, he has now decided that A.’s continued detention is no longer necessary.

  Being released before a verdict is unusual, but not unheard of. In the Dutch legal system, a judge can release a suspect from custody at any stage of a criminal proceeding.

  A.’s immediate release may indicate that the judge does not see enough proof of his guilt and is leaning toward a full acquittal. It can also mean that he will only be found guilty of the lesser crimes on the indictment, and the punishment will be less than the time he has already spent in jail.

  The judge ordered C.’s release a month ago, ruling in a pro-forma hearing that the evidence tying C. to the robbery was insufficient to keep him locked up in his cell at the Point Blanche prison.

  In total, C. and A. each spent about 310 days behind bars because of this case.

  However, even if the judge finds C. and A. not guilty next month, their legal troubles may not be over. The prosecution has the right to appeal the lower court’s verdict, which will send the case to be tried at the Joint Court of Justice.

The allegations

  During Wednesday’s trial, the prosecutor argued that C. and A. were part of a five-man team who robbed Island Treasure Jewelers in Maho on the night of January 16, 2023.

  One of the robbers smashed the display cases with a metal battering ram, while the others shovelled no fewer than 260 pieces of jewellery into a black bag. One man also fired a shot, which left a bullet hole in the rolling shutter of a neighbouring store.

  The robbers were in and out in less than two minutes, fleeing in a white van towards Lowlands with approximately US $278,000 worth of diamond and gold jewellery.

  The prosecutor also suspected C. and A. of forcing two youngsters into a vehicle and making them reveal information about now-convicted armed robber Delancy “Chino” Kartokromo (34).

  Kartokromo had broken into A.’s home on March 1, 2023, and made off with clothing, electronics, $7,000 in cash and, according to the prosecutor, the stolen jewels.

  C. and A. told the court on Wednesday that they had gone to Kartokromo’s home to retrieve their belongings that day, after learning that he was responsible for the burglary. However, both defendants denied that they had had guns and fired shots at the scene.

  They also denied forcing a 17-year-old friend of Kartokromo to get into their car, or that they had interrogated him until he gave up the location of the goods stolen from A.’s apartment. Both defendants disputed the prosecutor’s allegation that they mainly wanted to get back the vast quantity of jewellery originally taken in the Maho robbery.

  Similarly, C. and A. told the court that they had not pressured a 15-year-old to reveal the whereabouts of Kartokromo’s burglary accomplice on March 4, 2023.

  Both youngsters appeared in court on Wednesday, testifying that they had not been kidnapped.

  The 17-year-old said he had asked for a ride home and stepped into the car willingly. The 15-year-old said he had not gotten into the car at all, although this contradicted A.’s testimony that he had driven around with the teenager for several minutes.

  Last September, the Court of First Instance found Kartokromo guilty of burgling A.’s home on March 1, 2023. He was also convicted of armed robbery, threatening with a weapon and possession of marijuana, which stemmed from unrelated incidents.

  Kartokromo is now serving a six-year sentence at the Point Blanche prison.

The evidence

  The prosecutor on Wednesday primarily used wiretapped conversations, cell phone tower data and items found in later house searches to support his theory of the defendants’ guilt.

  C. and A. became suspects in the jewellery store robbery investigation after police received information that they had been involved, the prosecutor told the court.

  This led authorities to tap their mobile phones, and shortly after the robbery A. was heard talking about pawning jewellery. Later on, authorities heard someone telling A. that they did not know how C. could be arrested for armed robbery as police did not recover his “big, big chain.”

  On the day of the robbery, both defendants’ mobile phones pinged off telecommunication towers in Maho at the exact times of the robbery and followed the suspected escape route over the French border, the prosecutor argued.

  Police also found several pieces of jewellery in a search of A.’s home, and the prosecutor told the court that the jewellery store owner recognised a ring as one of the items stolen in the robbery.

  The prosecutor also used wire-tapped conversations to support his theory of the alleged shooting and kidnappings in early March 2023. At the time, C.’s and A.’s phones were still tapped as part of the jewellery store investigation.

  According to the prosecutor, C. told someone on the morning of March 1 that he needed to “borrow that toy.”

  C. said in another call: “Them man say they clipping us tonight, so I tried to clip one but I ain’t catch him good.”

  Later that month, A. is heard telling an unknown woman: “I end up taking one of the little fellas and beat them bad in order for them to tell me where my [things] be.”

  Two minutes after the 15-year-old’s parents reported that their son had been kidnapped, C. is heard talking to an unknown man. The prosecutor told the court that A. could be heard in the background saying, “Don’t let him go.”

  According to the prosecutor, C. replied: “No, I won’t let him go. He going to say where the other partner lives.”

  Both defendants denied that the tapped conversations were about illegal activity. C., in particular, told the court that police did not understand what he was talking about.

  Brooks described the case file as “sloppy” and “solely built on circumstantial evidence.”

  Bommel, similarly, argued that the robbery allegation was supported by “too little direct evidence” and described the evidence for the shooting and kidnapping charges as comprising “so much conflicting information that who knows what really happened.”

  Both defence lawyers questioned the timeline of the robbery put forward by the prosecutor, and emphasised their clients’ alibis.

  Bommel argued that it has not been established that the robbers fled over the French border into Lowlands, adding that the van could have driven toward Mullet Bay and stopped until the coast was clear.

  Bommel also argued that cell phone tower pings cannot always determine where a person is located.

  “When a cell tower is overloaded, the signal from a mobile phone can jump to the next nearest,” she said. “This could lead to my phone in Philipsburg being recorded on the tower in Guana Bay, for example. It does not mean that I’m in Guana Bay.”

  As for the ring found in A.’s home, Brooks argued that authorities cannot determine with absolute certainty from which store an item originates. “You can walk the whole of Frontstreet and find similar rings,” she said.

SINT MAARTEN–For years, persons living in Sint Maarten have suffered from the government of Sint Maarten not accepting their petitions (read: applications) for arbitrary reasons not cited in the law. However, on October 20, 2023, The Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten rendered a pivotal judgment that may change how government offices/entities handle petitions/applications submitted to them.

The case was handled by the legal team of Brooks & Associates, led by Attorney at law Brenda Brooks. The matter concerned a Venezuelan national (hereinafter: “the applicant”) who has resided in Sint Maarten for 30 years and was working at the same employer for the latter ten years. The applicant had residency under family reunification. In 2022, the applicant’s residency permit was rejected, and the relationship with his partner ended; the applicant, through his previous representative, attempted to submit an application through the so-called “Pilot Program.” The Pilot Program was, at least according to the coalition, an opportunity for undocumented persons who resided in Sint Maarten for five or more years, with or without residency, or persons employed by the same employer for five or more years. A list on the government’s website clearly stated who was eligible and what was necessary for a residency and labor permit under the Pilot Program.

Unfortunately for the applicant, the government refused to accept his application, citing that he did not meet the requirements as he had residency permits in the recent past. The applicant approached the Offices of Brooks & Associates and was represented by Ashton Richardson, LL.M., who engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Government of Sint Maarten for months about why the application would not be accepted. Ashton Richardson, known for handling administrative cases, faced challenges in other cases, too, as the list of documents published by the government did not reflect the actual requirements, and the civil servants handling the pilot project applications would, at times, refuse to accept the applications, further stating that additional documents are still needed. At least in other cases, Mr. Richardson was allowed to provide additional documents (despite the constant back and forth with the government on the relevancy of documents that were missing from the list of requirements).

The applicant’s case appeared to be different, as when Richardson attempted to submit the pilot program application, the handling civil servants refused to take the application. When it was requested that the reasons for this be provided in writing, Richardson would be met with the usual response, “We don’t do that here.” Richardson entered into yet another lengthy chain of correspondence with the government, including the relevant Minister of Justice, Minister of VSA, and the Minister of TEATT, all of whom were responsible for the program. After receiving no response, he threatened legal action, which was also met with no response.

Following the non-response from the government, a lengthy and detailed petition was filed at the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten, where Attorney Brooks requested that the Government of Sint Maarten be ordered by the Court to accept the pilot program application, as well as payment of the legal fees and attorney fees. The government of Sint Maarten reached out to the Offices of Brooks & Associates and made a settlement offer to accept the application, which was accepted. What parties could not agree on was the legal fees. Hence, the Court was requested to render a judgment on the legal fees.

The Court seized the opportunity and rendered a judgment on the fees but still touched on whether the government of Sint Maarten, through its civil servants, could refuse a petition. The Court ruled that the applicant in the case was hindered by the Country of Sint Maarten, through its civil servants, to submit his petition, and through this hindrance, by the civil servants, the applicant had no administrative recourse. However, the applicant was open to seeking a civil alternative through the civil judge in order to seek recompense for the protection of his rights.

This landmark judgment opens the way for persons whose petitions have been refused by handling civil servants to seek legal recourse in the event the handling civil servants refuses to accept their applications and/or issue their reasons for the refusal in writing by means of seeking legal recourse at the civil Court.

The right to petition enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution of Sint Maarten is pivotal in Sint Maarten’s democratic structure, and it is imperative to the Offices of Brooks & Associates to continue to fight to ensure that the government remains compliant with the Country of Sint Maarten’s constitution.