Below is a translated version of the Draft Code of Criminal Procedure of St. Maarten. This is provided by the NA parliamentary faction in order to give thorough insight about the law on Crown Witnesses.
Draft Code of Criminal Procedure of Sint Maarten
Commitments to witnesses
Article. 261f
Where the Prosecutor, with the prior written consent of the General Prosecutor, intends to make an appointment with a suspect who is prepared to give evidence in criminal proceedings against another suspect in exchange for a commitment from the Prosecutor, he shall inform the Commissioner responsible for the prosecution. The proposed appointment relates exclusively to the giving of testimony in the context of an investigation into offences as defined in Article 100, paragraph 1, that are committed in an organized context and, given their nature or their connection with other suspected offences committed by the accused, constitute a serious breach of the rule of law or to offences for which the legal description provides for a term of imprisonment of eight years or more. Under no circumstances can the Public Prosecutor promise full immunity.
The suspect who consults with the public prosecutor about making an appointment in accordance with the first paragraph may be assisted by a lawyer. A lawyer will be awarded to the suspect who does not yet have legal aid.
The intended appointment has been made in writing and contains as accurate a description as possible of it:
the offences about which and, if possible, the accused against whom the accused, who is also a witness as referred to in the first paragraph, is prepared to make a statement;
the offences for which the accused himself will be prosecuted and to which the promise relates;
the conditions that are imposed on the accused, who is also a witness, and with which he is prepared to comply;
the content of the public prosecutor's promise.
Article. 261g
The examining magistrate hears the accused, as well as a witness, about the intended agreement and then assesses the legitimacy of the agreement referred to in Article 261, paragraph 1. The Public Prosecutor shall provide the examining magistrate with the information he needs to assess it. In his assessment the examining magistrate takes into account the urgent need and the importance of obtaining the statement to be made by the accused, who is also a witness. He also gives an opinion on the reliability of the witness.
The examining magistrate shall lay down his opinion in an order. If he judges the agreement to be lawful, it will be made. The decision of the examining magistrate shall be reasoned, dated and signed and shall immediately be notified in writing to the public prosecutor and to the accused, who shall also be a witness.
The Public Prosecutor may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the examining magistrate in which the intended agreement is deemed not to be lawful within fourteen days after the date of the decision. The Court of Appeal will decide as soon as possible.
The Public Prosecutor will not attach the official report and other objects from which data can be derived that have been obtained by making an appointment as referred to in Article 261f to the procedural documents until the examining magistrate has judged the appointment to be lawful.
Article. 261h
After the appointment has been lawfully judged, the defendant as a witness referred to in article 261f, first paragraph, shall be questioned by the judge.
This witness cannot be questioned in application of articles 261 to 261e.
As soon as the interest of the investigation so permits, the examining magistrate will notify the accused, at whose expense the statement was made, of the conclusion of the agreement and its contents, on the understanding that no notification of the measures, as referred to in article 261k, is required.
In the interests of the investigation, the examining magistrate may, on his own behest, at the request of the Public Prosecutor or at the request of the witness, order that the identity of the witness be concealed from the accused for a specified period. The order shall be lifted by the examining magistrate before the completion of the investigation.
Article. 261i
Articles 261f to 261h shall apply mutatis mutandis where a convicted person is prepared to give a witness statement, in return for a commitment from the Public Prosecutor.
The requirement of Article 261f, paragraph 3, section b, is not applicable when the intended appointment is made in writing.
Article. 261j
From the explanatory memorandum:
A quid pro quo could be, for example:
Less obvious and also undesirable are, for example, the following promises:
(Emphasis added for clarification)
Commentary:
In the Netherlands, the exclusion of a custodial sentence, duty penalty or fine, up to a maximum of half (art. 226g paragraph 1 Sv jo. 44a Sr) may be pledged. This means that no immunity should be afforded, nor a monetary reward (premium).
Nor should any commitment be made with regard to additional penalties, such as confiscation, or measures such as the TBS or the deprivation of a part of the benefits.
undesirable
In short: a regulation such as the one proposed does not belong in a constitutional state! It is therefore highly questionable whether it is EHRM-resistant. But before we would find that out, the damage would have already been done.
https://www.soualiganewsday.com/index.php?option=com-k2&view=item&id=27205:na-mp-emmanuel-the-prosecutor’s-office-operates-dangerously-comparable-to-the-gestapo&Itemid=450
