PHILIPSBURG--A woman who was entrusted with the care of young girls was sentenced to thirty months or two-and-a-half years in prison by the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, October 20, after judges found that she had sexually abused a minor herself and deliberately failed to intervene when her then-husband sexually abused two other girls.
The ruling against Regine Sarich Danela Martina brings a years-long criminal case to a new conclusion, overturning a 2023 judgment that had acquitted her of most of the charges. The Court of Appeal found her guilty of four offences, while upholding her acquittals on two others.
The court found that Martina had repeatedly sexually abused a minor between 2006 and 2010, when the minor was entrusted to her care. The abuse began when the minor was between 12 and 16 years old and continued into the late teens, according to the judgment.
The court also found Martina guilty of deliberately providing an opportunity for her then-husband, Bernard Eugene Stroud, to sexually abuse two other minors by failing to intervene or prevent his actions. The offences involving one of the other minors occurred between 2017 and 2020, while those involving yet another minor dated from 2014 to 2016.
In its assessment of the case, the court placed particular weight on the position of trust and responsibility Martina held in relation to the children. The victims had been entrusted to her care, and the court found that the abuse took place in circumstances in which they should have been able to feel safe.
The judges described the offences as serious violations of the girls’ physical and sexual integrity, with the potential to cause lasting harm to their psychological well-being and sexual development.
The court also found that Martina had shown little awareness of the seriousness of the offences or their consequences for the victims.
The case had taken a different course at the Court of First Instance in November 2023. Martina was acquitted of five of the six charges at that stage and received a six-month suspended prison sentence, with a two-year probation period, and 200 hours of community service for the remaining offence.
The prosecution appealed, asking the Court of Appeal to overturn that judgment and impose an eight-year-and-two-month prison sentence. The prosecution also sought full compensation for two of the injured parties.
Martina’s defence, represented by attorney S.H.M. Ibrahim, argued for her acquittal on all charges and challenged the compensation claims.
The Court of Appeal ultimately reached a different conclusion from both the original court and the prosecution on several points. It convicted Martina on the first, second, fourth and sixth charges, but acquitted her of the third and fifth. The third charge concerned allegations that Martina had abused another separate minor. The court found insufficient legally admissible evidence to convict her.
The fifth charge alleged that Martina had assisted in the sexual abuse of another minor by Stroud by failing to intervene. The court found that it had not been sufficiently established that the abuse took place in Martina’s home or within her sphere of influence. Her presence at events was not, on its own, enough to establish that she had deliberately facilitated the abuse.
Although the court considered a prison sentence necessary, Martina will serve a shorter term than the judges initially deemed appropriate. The court said a sentence of 36 months or three years would otherwise have been justified by the seriousness of the offences. However, it found that Martina’s right to have her case heard within a reasonable time had been violated, both at first instance and on appeal.
The proceedings at first instance took more than two years from the point at which the reasonable-time period began. The appeal proceedings also exceeded the applicable two-year period, this time by more than 10 months. Finding no special circumstances that justified the delays, the court reduced the sentence by a total of six months, bringing it to 30 months’ imprisonment.
In determining the sentence, the judges also considered Martina’s personal circumstances, including her dependence on her then-husband at the time of the offences and the ongoing care she provides for her daughter, who requires intensive medical care because of a developmental disability. The court considered these factors to have some mitigating effect, but not enough to justify a non-custodial sentence.
The court also ordered Martina to pay 20,000 Caribbean guilders in compensation to one victim and Cg. 20,000 to another for non-material damages.
In both cases, the court said the seriousness and nature of the abuse made it reasonable to conclude that the victims had suffered harm, even without medical documentation to support their claims. The judges considered the duration, nature and frequency of the abuse, as well as the young age of the victims when it occurred.
Martina was held jointly responsible with Stroud for one victim's compensation. The court also ordered her to pay Cg. 1,000 in legal costs to each of the two victims.
The court did not impose a compensation measure in one case because the offences against her took place before such a measure was introduced into St. Maarten’s criminal law. The principle of legality prevented the court from applying it retroactively.
Another compensation claim was declared inadmissible in the criminal proceedings following Martina’s acquittal on the related charge. They may pursue the claim through the civil courts. The Court of Appeal’s judgment, delivered on October 20, replaces the November 2023 ruling of the Court of First Instance.
