GREAT BAY--Former Member of Parliament and former Minister Theo Heyliger has been denied early release following a decision that reportedly relied, in part, on calculations or advice from the United Nations Office for Project Services, UNOPS, an entity that along with the Dutch government is funding the construction of the new prison.(see related story on UNOPS possible role).
Heyliger’s family and legal representatives were reportedly informed of the decision last week, just before the centennial celebration honouring his grandfather, the late Dr. Claude Wathey. Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling rejected a request for Heyliger to leave prison under electronic monitoring, as well as an alternative request for release before his ordinary conditional-release date.
The decision does not prevent Heyliger from being considered later under an Article 1:37 prison-capacity measure. However, the treatment of his 91 days in pretrial detention, the percentages cited by the Minister and her earlier statements in Parliament have left several issues requiring clarification.
A prisoner serving more than one year may ordinarily be considered for conditional release after completing two-thirds of the sentence. The Minister has calculated Heyliger’s ordinary conditional-release date as January 27, 2027.
Release before the two-thirds point may be considered under Article 1:37 of the Criminal Code when prison space is urgently needed. Reaching 50%, 55% or 60% of a sentence does not, by itself, create a right to release.
The Minister has stated that Article 1:37 is activated when the Public Prosecutor’s Office informs her that detention space is urgently required. It remains unclear whether this is a legal condition, an internal procedure or an operational arrangement between the Ministry and the prosecutor.
The law gives the Minister the authority to make the release decision. The precise basis for treating a request from the prosecutor as a necessary first step has not been publicly identified.
Ninety-one credited days excluded?
The main calculation issue concerns the 91 days Heyliger spent in pretrial detention.
His five-year sentence was reportedly calculated as 1,800 days, based on 60 legal months of 30 days each.
The 91 days were credited when calculating his sentence expiry and ordinary conditional-release date. However, they were reportedly excluded when determining the percentage of the sentence completed for possible early release.
The calculation counted approximately 912 days from January 15, 2024, when Heyliger reported to prison, through July 16, 2026:
912 days divided by 1,800 days equals approximately 51%.
The Minister reportedly relied on this percentage in concluding that Heyliger had not reached either the 55% or 60% level.
Including the 91 days produces a different result:
912 days plus 91 days equals 1,003 days.
1,003 days divided by 1,800 days equals approximately 55.7%.
Including his credited pretrial detention would therefore place Heyliger within the 55% to 60% range referred to by the Minister. This would not automatically require the Minister to release him. It would, however, change the factual basis on which his position within the operational range was assessed.
The calculation attributed to UNOPS reportedly acknowledges that the percentage could be presented differently if the credited pretrial detention were included. It nevertheless treats the difference as an administrative presentation issue that does not affect Heyliger’s legal entitlement.
Further explanation is required because the 51% figure was reportedly used in the decision. If the percentage was relevant to the refusal, the exclusion of 91 credited days also had a practical effect on the assessment. To be clear, the Minister did not reject the 91 days as irrelevant.
She found, based on the prison calculation reviewed by UNOPS, that 92 days of pre-trial detention had already been credited toward Heyliger’s sentence-expiry and conditional-release dates. The dispute concerned whether those days should also produce a higher percentage served and an earlier release date, which the Minister, relying on the UNOPS review, rejected.
Minister cited releases below 60%
The Minister’s statements in Parliament appear broader than the position reflected in Heyliger’s decision. She told Parliament that persons were being released “far under” 60% of their sentences and explained that the percentage could vary between 50%, 55% and 60%, depending on the situation at the prison.
The Minister also said officials reviewed overviews containing prisoners who had served 62%, 60% and 58% of their sentences. She added that discussions had included percentages as low as 50%.
In Heyliger’s case, however, a figure of approximately 51% was reportedly cited to support the conclusion that he had not reached the 55% or 60% operational levels.
The parliamentary explanation suggests that the percentages are flexible and determined by prison capacity at a particular time. The written decision reportedly places greater emphasis on Heyliger being below 55%, although the calculation producing the 51% figure excluded his credited pretrial detention.
Clarification is therefore needed on how the 50% level discussed in Parliament relates to the higher percentages cited in the decision, and what additional criteria were used to reject Heyliger’s request.
Electronic monitoring policy also formed part of request
The request was not based solely on a reported 55% arrangement. It also sought permission for Heyliger to leave the prison under electronic monitoring.
Information presented in support of the request reportedly relied on the 2023 Conditional Release Policy, which provided a framework for early release and electronic monitoring. It was argued that the policy had not been formally withdrawn and had previously been applied in individual cases.
The request reportedly advanced a calculation under which electronic monitoring could account for a 15% reduction from the ordinary two-thirds period. Under that calculation, two-thirds of a 60-month sentence would amount to 40 months. A 15% reduction, equal to nine months, would reduce the relevant period to 31 months.
Heyliger had reportedly completed more than 32 months when his pretrial detention was included. The Minister did not accept that this calculation created a right to release and maintained that electronic monitoring is a possible condition of release, rather than an automatic alternative to detention.
The decision does not clearly state whether the 2023 policy is no longer being applied, whether its interpretation has changed or whether Heyliger failed to meet a particular condition under that policy.
Individual circumstances reportedly presented
Heyliger’s request also reportedly addressed his personal circumstances and conduct during detention.
Information submitted for consideration described him as a first-time offender serving a sentence for nonviolent offences. It reportedly stated that he has maintained positive conduct in prison, has not displayed aggression toward staff or other prisoners and has a stable residence and family structure available to support electronic monitoring.
The request also reportedly raised his medical history, including previous kidney procedures, and maintained that he presented no identified flight risk or danger to public safety.
The Minister retains discretion when deciding whether to approve electronic monitoring or early release. However, the decision does not publicly indicate whether any of these individual factors were disputed, considered insufficient or outweighed by other concerns.
This is relevant because Article 1:37 decisions involve both available capacity and an assessment of the individual prisoners who may be considered.
Prison capacity figure requires clarification
The Minister has repeatedly stated that the Point Blanche prison has not reached its stated maximum capacity of 80 inmates. It is not clear whether that count includes prisoners currently being housed in the female ward, including Heyliger.
Clarification is needed on whether the figure of 80 refers to all persons detained at the prison or only those accommodated in the main male detention sections.
Prisoners being housed in the female ward still occupy detention space within the facility. If they are not included in the figure cited publicly, the stated occupancy level may not fully reflect the number of prisoners being held or the number of functional spaces available.
The issue is relevant because the Minister has linked Article 1:37 releases directly to the prosecutor identifying an urgent need for detention capacity.
Several questions remain
The decision leaves several matters unresolved. These include why Heyliger’s 91 credited pretrial detention days were excluded from the percentage calculation, how the Minister’s statements about consideration at 50% relate to the 55% and 60% figures used in the decision, and whether the 2023 electronic-monitoring policy remains applicable.
Clarification is also needed on whether prisoners housed in the female ward are counted within the prison’s stated capacity, which individual factors were considered in Heyliger’s case and why UNOPS was reportedly involved in advising on the sentence calculation of a specific prisoner. (see related story)
The Minister must also clarify whether the same calculation method, including the treatment of pretrial detention, has been applied to other prisoners released before completing 60% of their sentences.
