Representatives of the Council on Law Enforcement on Friday last (May 15) presented its report “ The security of public officials in Sint Maarten” to St. Maarten’s Minister of Justice, Dennis Richardson. Making the presentation to the minister were St. Maarten’s member on the Council for Law Enforcement, Franklyn Richards and chief inspector secretariat Council for Law Enforcement (section St. Maarten), Gerard van Voorst.
The report details findings of an inspection related to concerns regarding an increase of incidents not only worldwide, but also within the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. This report addresses the question to what extent the security of public figures and officials is regulated and organized, in St. Maarten.
The Council notes that public officials serve for and by the sake of the democratic and legal order. It is thus expected that they must be able to execute their duties in an unobstructed manner. The security of public officials is, after all, essential to a well-functioning democratic legal order and society.
Among the noteworthy findings of the Council are that the matter of this form of security is not adequately addressed on a formal basis. The Council is of the opinion that there is need for a coherent policy and implementation based on regulation. Pursuant to the Police Kingdom Act, security tasks are assigned to the police, since it is generally charged with the enforcement of the law and order.
The Council on Law Enforcement, furthermore, discovered a lack of consistency in the current practices of security of public figures and officials, in Sint Maarten.
The current situation is, above all, one of ad hoc performance, with many different players and missing structures of authority and accountability, notes the report.
The Council believes that an integral system of security for Sint Maarten should be drafted. However before this can be established, the Government of Sint Maarten needs to determine which security level is necessary for public figures, whilst also taking the budgetary constraints of Sint Maarten into account.
In the view of the Council, the existing practices persisted because no serious incidents or concrete threat of significance have occurred in Sint Maarten. The Council considers that despite the perception of Sint Maarten being a “Friendly Island”, the protection of public figures should be established based on law and policy. The council is happy to note that the regulation of the security of public figures is on the agenda of the both the Minister of General Affairs and the Minister of Justice.
The Council is encouraged that both ministers have initiated concrete steps aimed at regulation. The key, now, is for both ministers to collaborate appropriately on the matter so as to adopt appropriate measures, rules and regulations for a professional approach as well as well-structured system of security for dignitaries. This taking national security into account.
A second report presented to the minister of justice, addresses the daily confiscation of items by the Police Force of Sint Maarten.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) provides the legal basis, for such.
The Council on Law Enforcement notes that adhering to the prescribed procedures safeguards the limitation of infringement on private property rights, secured custody of materials of evidence and confiscated goods while protecting society from harmful items.
The Council examined the procedures used for confiscation of items by the police force (KPSM) and the Detective Cooperative Team (RST).
In addition the Council looked into whether the competent authorities comply with applicable laws and regulations, whether there is sufficient knowledge among the staff and if this sufficiently put in practice in the workplace. This with respect to concrete procedural steps to be followed, as required by law. With regards to storage of the items, the Council not only inspected the manner of storage and registration but also surveyed the storage facilities. The Council looked at the supervision by those ultimately responsible within the police force and the public prosecutor’s office, and finally reviewed the risks associated with the management and control over the confiscation of items.
In its report, the Council highlights several points of interest resulting from its findings on regulatory aspects.
First of all, the law appoints the court registrar as the custodian of confiscated items, thus being charged with and responsible for the registration and storage of items. The findings in the report indicate that these tasks are presently, not performed in accordance with the legal obligations. Although there are explanations on reasons to do so, the Council concludes that as long as the law does not provide otherwise, those obligations must be fulfilled by the court registrar, for the sake of compliance.
In practice, the police force is disproportionately burdened by the consequences of the current situation regarding the court registrar’s role where it concerns handling of confiscated items. As a result the police is now responsible for storage, registration and the handling of bottlenecks concerning these items.
To counter criminal behavior and rid the community of harmful items, a proper handling of high risk items is paramount, says the Council. With the exception of some points of concern, the police force and the RST have implemented the required procedures. The registration, management and further handling of high risk confiscated items such as money, weapons and narcotics, is well in place at both the police force and the detective cooperative team.
From the inspection conducted by the Council, it appears that the police force, has made progress in the area of confiscated items, since its transition period. The required know-how about the legal framework of the confiscation of items for investigations is sufficient, among police officers.
In practice, the main bottleneck for the police force is the confiscation of non-high-risk items, such as computers and telephones. These are not centrally managed or registered. With the absence of an administrator, there is no overview of such items and the storage is scattered. The management moreover, insufficiently, safeguards the interests of security and transparency in the confiscation of these goods. This is an undesirable situation and needs to be addressed urgently, notes the report.
Where it concerns facilities, the Council concludes that an alternative must be found for the storage of large vehicles and vessels, because Sint Maarten does not have an appropriate and secure storage location for these confiscated items.
Overall, the Council notes improvement in the area of confiscated items, especially with regards to high risk items. To maintain progress and work towards integrated compliant procedures, the Council has made seven recommendations for improvement in its report.
The reports presented will be accessible online six weeks after today on the website of the Council on Law Enforcement (www.raadrechtshandhaving.com).
