PHILIPSBURG--A 53-year-old resident of St. Eustatius, who was convicted by the Court of First Instance of having committed sexual acts with two minor girls, was also found guilty by the Court of Appeals on Tuesday. However, the Appellate Court only found the case involving one of the girls proven.
The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals found the defendant guilty of having inappropriately touched his niece while she was 13 years old. The crimes were committed in December 2013 in St. Eustatius and in Miami, Florida, in July 2014.
The Appeals Court sentenced the defendant to 18 months, six of which were suspended, on three years’ probation. The Court also ordered Parole Board supervision, which may include psychiatric treatment.
In sentencing it was taken into account that the defendant, who is a first offender, had led his own feelings prevail over the consequences for his underage victim.
On March 17, the Court of First Instance sentenced Errol F. Gumbs, who was born in Aruba, to 24 months, six of which were suspended, on three years’ probation, in the case which had sparked much controversy in Statia.
The Court of First Instance had considered it proven he had performed illicit sexual acts on two minor girls between December 2013 and June 2014. The girls were 13 and 11 years old at the time.
The defendant confessed he had inappropriately touched his niece while she was sleeping, but denied he had gone any further and also denied he had touched her more than once.
Concerning the other girl, Gumbs claimed she had made sexual advances, which he had declined.
Solicitor-General Taco Stein found the charges proven and called upon the Appellate Court to uphold the verdict, he said during the December 10 hearing.
Attorney Ernst Wesselius from Bonaire was critical of the way in which the Prosecutor and the Judge of the Court of First Instance had gathered evidence against his client, who was held in pre-trial detention August 25, 2014-September 13, 2014.
The lawyer questioned the correctness of witness statements and said there was no evidence that his client had touched more than one girl. He called upon the Court to sentence his client to a prison term equal to his pre-trial detention or to impose a fully conditional sentence.
