PHILIPSBURG–Three persons suspected of involvement in a human-smuggling operation in January 2023 will be learning their fate on June 7. One of their co-defendants was acquitted for lack of evidence in the Court of First Instance on Wednesday.

All four suspects were charged with preparing a human-smuggling operation from Dutch St. Maarten/French St. Martin to the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), January 7-8, 2023. One of the suspects, D.C.B. (36), was also charged with involvement in a successful human smuggling operation January 27-28, 2023. In his case, the Prosecutor’s Office demanded a four-year prison sentence and confiscation of a harpoon.

The woman B.L.K. (43), who is held for the organiser of the January 7-8 transport of 10 undocumented persons from Cuba, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, including one child, to St. John’s, is facing 24 months, eight of which are to be suspended, on two years’ probation.

Bus driver L.V. (44) allegedly transported the illegal immigrants to K.’s apartment on Bush Road, that served as meeting point for the operation. He reportedly received $200 for his services.

He also was to deliver US $20,200 to a man who was waiting for the immigrants in Marigot, supposedly to take them to a boat to transport them to the USVI, the prosecutor said during Wednesday’s hearing. The bus never made it to the meeting point in Marigot as it was stopped by the police in Cole Bay and the passengers arrested.

According to the prosecutor, V. should also be sentenced to 24 months, eight of which were to be suspended, on two years’ probation. His bus should be confiscated and he should be ordered to pay $20,200, the prosecutor said.

The prosecutor demanded 20 months, eight of which were to be suspended, on two years’ probation, and confiscation of his vehicle, against suspect C.E.G.A. However, the court decided to acquit the man, as according to the judge, it could not be proven that he knew that his girlfriend, whom he dropped off at Domino’s Pizza on Bush Road, was one of the passengers in the human-smuggling operation.

His acquittal was a late birthday present for the defendant, who celebrated his 41st birthday on Monday, May 15. The Prosecutor’s Office has two weeks to file an appeal.

Attorney Thaïsa Heymans successfully pleaded with the court that suspect A. was not aware of human smuggling and that the Prosecutor’s Office had no evidence that there would have been close cooperation between the suspects. He was the victim of a case of being “at the wrong place, at the wrong time,” Heymans said.

Lawyer Brenda Brooks added that the prosecutor’s allegations against A. were only based on “feelings” and “strong impressions”.

Suspect K. largely confessed to the allegations, while her three co-defendants denied any involvement. From wiretaps and observations by the Police Human Trafficking Team, which started in early December 2022, it emerged that K. allegedly was busy preparing a transport of undocumented persons from St. Maarten to the USVI against payment of $2,500 per person. K. was to receive $300 for her services, the prosecutor said.

K. admitted that she needed the money because she could not sustain herself and her family as a masseuse during and after the coronavirus pandemic. However, she denied that she was making human smuggling “a habit”.

Attorney Geert Hatzmann claimed that K. was not one of the organisers or operators. “She only made her home available, introduced two passengers and acted as a cashier. She is not a co-perpetrator, but an accomplice, but that has not been charged,” he said in defence of his client.

V. only offered his services as a bus driver and had no suspicion that his passengers were illegal immigrants, his lawyer Marlon Hart told the court in pleading for his client’s acquittal, or dismissal from all prosecution.

On behalf of suspect B., who was not present as he was sent home to his native Colombia, Hart said that B. had no knowledge of human smuggling and that he never participated in such crime. The lawyer said his client was a construction worker and taxi driver without a criminal record. “He has unsuspectingly done his job as a taxi driver.”

The judge said he will take three weeks to consider all the evidence in this case.

PHILIPSBURG--A suspect was sentenced Thursday to twelve months, six of which were suspended, on two years’ probation, for possession of an illegal firearm and 539 grammes of marijuana.

In front of the judge in the Court of First Instance, Camron Qureek Thewet (23) did not deny that he had a Glock firearm with 12 cartridges and the drugs in his possession when he was apprehended by the police near Firefighter’s Roundabout in Philipsburg on December 30, 2022.

In reaction to the spate of armed robberies committed at jewellery stores in the capital of St. Maarten around that time, the police noted that Thewet and another person were riding in circles on a scooter in Philipsburg. The police thought that was suspicious and dispatched a patrol after the two men. They tried to escape by running off on foot, but Thewet was nevertheless arrested.

He told the police he had found the loaded gun “next to a truck” and had decided to keep the weapon for his protection.

“That’s what everyone says about themselves,” the judge told the defendant, “but at the same time lots of bad things happen, robberies, killings, and it is forbidden to carry a gun.”

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the semi-automatic weapon was investigated by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI), and it emerged that the weapon had been used in two crimes in St. Maarten and Anguilla. These crimes are still under investigation, the prosecutor said Thursday.

Thewet spent 14 days in pre-trial detention. He was released on the orders of the Prosecutor’s Office due to a lack of capacity in the Pointe Blanche prison. Nevertheless, the prosecutor said Thewet was guilty of committing two serious crimes.

“It can be fear or that he made enemies, but we don’t know that now, perhaps later,” the prosecutor said about Thewet’s firearm possession.

Attorney Thaїsa Heymans claimed that the evidence against Thewet – the firearm and the drugs – had been obtained illegally because her client was the victim of police profiling.

“My client is no criminal. He is trying to better his life and is busy obtaining a General Education Development (GED) diploma at University of St. Martin. He acknowledges that it was dangerous that he had a firearm with him,” the lawyer said.

“You can argue whether you were planning a robbery, as the police suspected, but the moment they stopped, turned on the flashing lights [of the police vehicle – Ed.] and tried to stop you, you threw the scooter on the ground and ran off, and only then were you apprehended,” the judge told the defendant at the end of the hearing.

“Running away from a [police] stop raises suspicion that you were doing bad things, andthat made your arrest lawful,” the judge said in sentencing Thewet according to the prosecutor’s “quite reasonable, and honestly, also low demand.

From: https://www.thedailyherald.sx/islands/man-on-trial-for-possession-of-firearm-allegedly-used-in-two-violent-crimes

On Monday April 3, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. Thaïsa Heymans took the oath as Attorney at Law before the Common Court of Justice of Curaçao, Aruba, Sint Maarten and the BES Islands during an extra-ordinary hearing, chaired by the Vice President of the Joint Court of Justice, Judge Gertjan Wouters.

In attendance at the swearing in ceremony was her mentor, Attorney Brenda Brooks, her family, friends as well wishers alongside some of her colleagues from Brooks & Associates as other local attorneys.

Attorney Heymans was born and raised in the Netherlands of Caribbean parents. She completed her primary, secondary and tertiary education in the Netherlands. During her university studies and after obtaining her Master’s Degree in International Commercial Law in June of 2011 Attorney Heymans worked at a Collection and Bailiff Agency in the Netherlands, where she was able to put in practice the Civil procedural laws that were cultivated at the university.

Attorney Heymans then went on to work in the maritime industry where she handled underwriting and settlement of damage to ships, construction equipment, damage to goods being shipped, and also damage to cables, for example, caused during drilling. Part of her duties was to formulate a legal opinion on policy cover, fact-finding investigation, debt and/or amount of damage to be paid out on claims.

After organizing a recruitment for the Dutch Caribbean Islands in the Netherlands, Attorney Heymans was hired by the Government of Sint Maarten in 2013 and she worked from December 2013 until June 2019 at the Ministry of TEATT, department of Civil Aviation, Shipping and Maritime in the function as Lawyer.

Attorney Heymans then went on to work as Legal Advisor at Bureau Intellectual Property (BIP) St. Maarten where she was responsible for drafting, reviewing and negotiating contracts and a variety of other (legal) documents. Ms. Heymans also handled legal tasks related to Intellectual Property Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Civil rights and formulated, propagated and defended policy, giving direction to rural policy and legislative processes. Attorney Heymans was also responsible for the preparation of periodic (financial) reports as well as processes related to International and National trademark registration.

Attorney Heymans joined Brooks & Associates in February 2023 where she will practice general law under the mentorship of Attorney Brenda Brooks. Brooks & Associates is elated to welcome Thaïsa Heymans to its dynamic, young and experienced team.

On March 15, 2021 the Court of First Instance handed down a decision in
which the rejection by the Minister of Justice in an immigration case was
nullified. The immigrant in question followed proper procedures to regulate
her stay with her Dutch husband in St. Maarten. The case in question is eerily
similar to a previous case in which the rejection of an immigrant was also
rejected on similar grounds. Seems to be a clear-cut case of same script
difference cast.

As per procedure, the immigrant who is a Guyanese national received
permission from the Immigration Department to marry a Dutch St. Maartener
here on Sint Maarten. This permission can only be granted once the
immigrant goes through rigorous interviews with the Immigration
Department. Once the marriage was approved and eventually done, the
immigrant following the advice of the Immigration Department and as per
procedure, left St. Maarten so that her husband could apply for her permit
for temporary residency. The husband made sure to attach to the application
evidence that his wife had left the country prior to the application.
Literally a year later the Minister of Justice rejected the application citing that
that the immigrant had resided in St. Maarten several years illegally prior to
the request for residency and that wasconsidered a violation of the public
order. The rejection also alluded to an additional argument that the immigrant
was still on the island awaiting a decision on the application despite the
Immigration Department receiving clear evidence such as a copy of a stamped
passport and travel documentation showing that the immigrant has been
abroad.

During the pleading phase before the Court of First Instance the Minister
departed from the argument that the immigrant was on the island at the time
of submission, but remained firm on her stance that the immigrant’s prior
illegal stay on the island was a violation against the public order. The Minister
of Justice also went on a tangent on the previous decision by the Appellate
Court despite not being the one who initiated appeal in that particular case,
and therefore legally speaking the Minister “agreed” with the ruling of the
Court of First Instance concerning prior illegal stay. During the hearing, the
Minister of Justice was also confronted with a myriad of similar cases where
the immigrants in those cases received a permit, insofar that they followed
the necessary procedures, yet had an illegal stay prior to their applications.
The Minister alluded to upcoming policy amendment that would serve as a
proper legal basis for the rejection, which as we all know was published on
February 19, 2021, 4 days after this case was handled.

The Court eventually rightfully ruled on March 15, 2021, that at the time that
the Minister of Justice could not legally use the previous illegal stay as a
ground for rejection as there is no published policy restricting those
immigrants from leaving the island and subsequently requesting residency
via the lawful channels.

The Court nullified the rejection, and the Minister of Justice was condemned
to make a new decision within four weeks and to pay Naf.1,550.00 in legal
fees.

The case was handled by Ashton Richardson, LL.M.of Brooks & Associates
and B&A Consultancy Services under the guidance of Brenda Brooks.

https://www.smn-news.com/st-maarten-st-martin-news/37129-court-of-first-instance-of-st-maarten-once-again-nullified-rejection-given-in-an-immigration-case-by-the-minister-of-justice.html

The case at hand was prepared by Brenda Brooks and handled in court by her associate, attorney Safira Ibrahim.

According to Brooks & Associates the plaintiff followed all the rules to regulate his stay with his wife in St. Maarten. Procedures dictate that the immigration department gives permission for such a marriage through the counsel of his native country in St. Maarten. The marriage as approved, the couple got married and then the plaintiff went off island to await a decision about his residence permit.

Unfortunately, bureaucracy and Hurricane Irma threw a spanner in the works. The application for family formation must be submitted within a year of the marriage but this proved to be impossible. “The wife was dependent on dates issued by the Census Office and then came Hurricane Irma,” Brooks & Associates writes in a press statement. The marriage was only registered after two years and subsequently the residence permit was submitted.

At first, the ministry denied the permit saying that the request was filed too late and that the wife did not have sufficient income to support her husband.

When the plaintiff appealed the decision to the minister, another reason for rejection surfaced:  the immigrant had resided for several years illegally in St. Maarten prior to the request for a residence permit. The ministry considered this to be a violation of the public order.

When the case went to the Court in First Instance, the ministry had to withdraw the argument that the wife had insufficient income. The guidelines set a gross monthly income of 2,000 guilders as the minimum and the wife could prove that she met this requirement.

The court ruled that the ministry could not use the applicant’s previous illegal stay on the island as an argument for rejection, but it still denied the permit because it held the plaintiff responsible for registering the marriage too late and for filing the request for the residence permit too late as well.

The court of appeal overruled the lower court, ruling that the delay in the marriage’s registration was not the immigrant’s fault.

The court ordered the minister of Justice to take a new decision and made clear that the previous grounds for rejection – the income-requirement, the late registration of the marriage or the illegal stay – cannot be used as reasons to deny the permit again.

The ministry has to pay legal and court fees for the plaintiff to the tune of 3,250 guilders.