GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Raeyhon Peterson and his brother Keenan Peterson were each sentenced by the Court of First Instance on Wednesday to 70 hours of community service in the criminal case arising from an April 2025 physical altercation.
MP Peterson has two weeks to lodge an appeal against the ruling if he chooses to do so. No decision on whether he will appeal has been announced at this stage.
Although Wednesday's ruling constitutes a criminal conviction, the 70-hour community-service sentence does not appear to trigger the constitutional provisions for the automatic suspension or removal of an MP. Under Article 50 of the Constitution of St. Maarten, those consequences are tied to specified convictions carrying a custodial sentence. Peterson therefore remains a sitting Member of Parliament, subject to any appeal he may choose to file within the statutory 14-day period. Any additional legal penalties were not immediately clear.
A significant point emerging from Wednesday's proceedings concerns an allegation that had surrounded the case publicly before it reached court. According to the defence, no allegation that MP Peterson brandished, used or threatened anyone with a firearm was raised by either the prosecution or the defense during the case.
Earlier media reporting surrounding the April 2025 incident had drawn attention to Peterson's status as a licensed firearm holder and reported that authorities were examining whether firearm protocols had been observed. The resulting public narrative included descriptions of Peterson as a "gun-wielding MP," but no such allegation formed part of the prosecution presented Wednesday, nor was a firearm allegation addressed by the defense.
The defense instead centered its case on the sequence of two physical incidents that it maintained occurred only minutes apart, and on Peterson's physical and emotional state following the first confrontation.
In written pleadings dated August 19, the defense argued that the first incident and the later confrontation were inseparably connected. It relied in part on an earlier position taken by the Public Prosecution Service itself during proceedings seeking authorization to prosecute a political officeholder, in which the prosecution had stated that the first incident formed the reason for the second and that the two followed each other shortly afterward.
The defense challenged a subsequent August 10 position from the prosecution that observations concerning the first incident were not relevant to assessing the second, which was largely captured on video. The defense maintained that the prosecution could not previously treat both incidents as connected and later separate them for purposes of the criminal proceedings.
At the center of Peterson's defense was noodweerexces, a Dutch-law concept dealing with circumstances in which a person exceeds the limits of necessary self-defense as an immediate consequence of an intense emotional state caused by an unlawful attack.
The defense argued that Peterson had been publicly struck during the first incident, knocked to the ground and suffered injuries around his eye. The pleadings describe a bloodied eye, a swollen eye socket and pain suffered immediately after he was struck. Peterson's position was that he remained in a state of shock when the second confrontation occurred several minutes later.
According to the defense account, Peterson was speaking with a woman who was seated in the passenger side of a vehicle when the driver, identified in the proceedings as Q., exited the vehicle following a brief exchange and struck Peterson in the face. The defense said the blow knocked Peterson to the ground and caused the eye injury.
Peterson then returned to the apartment complex where he and his brother lived. His brother, who saw his injuries, subsequently accompanied him when Peterson decided to go to a cousin who lived nearby to ask if he knew the identity of the man who had struck him. A friend who was with Keenan Peterson at the time also joined them.
The defense said that when Peterson drove out of the street, he unexpectedly saw Q. standing directly opposite the apartment complex. Peterson had expected Q. to be elsewhere because he believed he was transporting passengers to Beacon Hill.
According to the defense, Peterson concluded at that moment that Q. had come looking for him. Still affected by the earlier incident, he reacted impulsively, approached Q. and attempted to strike him once. The attempted blow was deflected. The defense maintained that Peterson's direct participation was limited to that attempted strike.
The defense acknowledged that the response was not a wise one, but argued that it was impulsive rather than planned. It stressed that only approximately five to six minutes separated the two incidents and rejected any suggestion of premeditation.
The video footage of the second incident was not disputed by the defense. The pleadings acknowledge that the images appear serious and state that both brothers regret what happened.
The defense, however, maintained that the video also shows that the third person continued striking Q. According to the defense, Keenan Peterson attempted to turn Q. away from that individual, after which Keenan and Q. fell to the ground, with part of that sequence visible in the footage.
The defense argued that Peterson's circumstances could fall within what is described in Dutch jurisprudence as tardief exces, or delayed excessive self-defense. This concerns circumstances in which someone who has been attacked does not respond during the original assault, but reacts shortly afterward while still under an intense emotional state caused by that assault.
The defense maintained that the few minutes separating the incidents were insufficient to break the connection between the first assault, Peterson's emotional state and his subsequent reaction. It also argued that the emotional state caused by the original assault does not have to be the only factor influencing a defendant, provided it was decisive in producing the reaction.
The court was asked to take into account that Peterson had just been knocked to the ground in public and had sustained injuries to his eye, eye socket and upper facial area. The defense argued that those circumstances affected his ability at the time to fully assess the limits of what constituted a necessary or proportionate response.
The defense also sought to have two witnesses, identified here as J.F. and L.R.G.K., heard concerning the first confrontation. Both were described as eyewitnesses who could testify that Peterson had been struck shortly before the second incident and that, according to their accounts, he had not provoked the initial physical attack.
The defense asked that if the court was considering a conviction, those witnesses be heard before a final decision. It argued that the circumstances surrounding the first confrontation were important to properly evaluating the claim of excessive self-defense.
The defense's primary request was for Peterson to be discharged from criminal liability based on the defense advanced. With respect to Keenan Peterson, it sought a fully suspended sentence or community service. Alternatively, if the court rejected Raeyhon Peterson's primary defense, it asked that he also receive a fully suspended sentence or community service.
The defense also pointed to the potentially serious consequences of the case for both brothers. It noted that Raeyhon Peterson is a university-trained lawyer and that Keenan Peterson also has an academic background. It argued that a criminal conviction could have long-term consequences for both men in a small society.
In relation specifically to the MP's conduct, the defense argued that, viewed on its own, his actions amounted at most to an attempted simple assault. It acknowledged that lawyers could characterize the wider incident differently because three persons were involved, but maintained that Peterson himself attempted a single strike and deeply regretted what followed.
The Court ultimately imposed 70 hours of community service on each brother.
The following statements were among witness materials, they are produce here verbatim and without any stylistic correction. The statements represent the accounts of the persons who made them.
Witness statement #1
"On April 9th, 2025, I left Red Diamond at approximately 5:00am when the establishment closed. I walked down the steps and as I was crossing the street to get to my car, I saw Rae standing at the passenger side of a vehicle speaking to a girl. The driver then came out of the vehicle and approached Rae. Within a few seconds I saw the driver hit Rae in his face and Rae fell. They began scuffling and the driver of the vehicle threw a bag. Rae picked up the bag and left. The driver and the passenger drove off. I got to my car, and I saw other people in the area still. I was in shock and ended up speaking to the other people who were still in the area. They stated that the driver of the vehicle was a taxi driver who the girl hired and he got jealous of the girl socializing with other men."
Witness statement #2
"I was sleeping at my house on Tuesday night (8 April -9 April 2025) when my phone rang around 4 AM to 5 AM. When I saw the phone I recognized the number of a gypsy/taxi driver guy that I knew named BoyBoy. I picked up and I heard him screaming at me “where your cousin be I gonna fuck him up”. I was confused because I just woke up. I asked him which cousin, and he replied “your politician cousin I gon fuck he up”. At that time I heard commotion on the other end of the call and I started hearing shouting, and the noise was coming from downstairs by me. I put on clothes and ran downstairs.
When I reached downstairs I saw one of my cousins Keenan, who lives close to me, his car parked up in front of my gate, and I saw him restraining the same guy that was on the phone with me on the ground. I saw my other cousin Rae, his older brother standing there and shouting emotionally to me that this guy just punched him for no reason. When I reached, the situation deescalated, and I stood there for a bit speaking to my cousin about what happened. He then went home."
Witness statement #3
"I was closing up our family restaurant La Calleta by the Simpson Bay fish market on the Tuesday night of 8 April 2025 going into Wednesday 9 April. This was around 4 Am or a little after. I spotted a car like a small van parked up across the road in front of the police station and it was moving slowly, then it stopped. Then I saw the driver come out the car and walk towards the back of the car to the other side where there was a person standing on the other side of the car by the passenger side. Then I recognized the car belonging to Ray Peterson parked up not too far behind the car and saw that the other person was him. The driver of the car walked towards him and stood in front of him for a couple of seconds. I then saw the driver swing towards Ray and he fell down. He got up after and him and the driver were going back and forth. Then I saw Ray walk away and grab a bag from the floor and go into his car. He then drove off towards the Simpson bay Bridge."
Complaint filed by Keenan Peterson after the incident on May 28, 2025
"I would like to make an official complaint about an incident that took place last night in the vicinity of Simpsonbay. I was by the Sol Gas station in Simpsonbay putting gas in my vehicle. I drive a black Audi Q3 with numberplates P- 2222. After I left the gas station I was heading in the direction of the Simpsonbay Bridge when suddenly a unknown man to me pulled up along side my vehicle. I continued driving , my windows were down. He then turned to me and said” If I think I am a big man?” So I turned and said to him;” hey bro I don’t know you.” He then said that he knows Herman who is my uncle. While he was saying all of this he was being very aggressive. He then said that he also knows that my brother is off island. My brother is Mp Raeyhon Peterson. He told me” that he also knows who my dad is and that I should make sure that my vehicle is bullet proof”. After this I saw where he turned around with his scooter and went back in the direction of Simpsonbay. While looking in my side mirror I noticed that he had turned back around and someone else was on the scooter with him and they were speeding trying to catch up with my vehicle. When they had caught up with me I saw that Kelvin Jack was on the back of the scooter with him. I know Kelvin Jack a.k.a. Boy Boy because he and my brother had an issue in the past. While they were next to me I noticed that they were both trying to lean towards the car so I began to speed off. They also speed off coming towards me and I continued driving in the direction of the KFC restaurant in Cole Bay. Through all this I was trying to contact my brother to see what I should do. When I reach by the roundabout they were still behind of me. When I saw this I went around the roundabout and drove back in the direction of Simpsonbay. They kept riding in a speed behind of me. after I passed Cappuccino restaurant I drove faster and swung into Pelican while driving in there and I looked back I noticed that they didn't follow me inside there. I continued to driving towards my parents house. When I arrived there I just went upstairs and told my father what had just transpired. We then called the police and explained them the situation. I didn’t see anyone with a weapon at the time.
At the time of the incident I did not know what the driver of the scooter had name. But someone told me that his name is Malik Peterson. I also have a picture of him that I will send to you. I will also send you a picture of Kelvin Jack. The person who told me who Malik is also told me that he is known for carrying a firearm. The scooter is blue but I didn’t get chance to see the numberplate that was on it.
I feel threatened for my life and that of my family and knowing now that Malik do carry a firearm I feel even more threatened. Because seeing that Malik turned around and came back I don’t know what their intentions were."
