PHILIPSBURG--The Prosecutor’s Office demanded a prison sentence of 30 months Wednesday against the man held responsible for the accident that cost the life of entrepreneur and former Rotary president Ramesh Manek on April 16, 2015.
The Prosecutor charged suspect K.M.C. (32), who is a resident of French St. Martin, with manslaughter and the lesser count of wrongful death while driving under the influence.
Prosecutor Nanouk Lemmers said Wednesday she only found the lesser count proven. Besides imposing a prison sentence of 48 months, 18 of which were to be suspended, the Prosecutor called upon the Court to impose a three-year driving ban, confiscation of the black Hummer H3 which the suspect had been driving, and mandatory Parole Board guidance, which may include treatment by Mental Health Foundation.
Manek was jogging on Airport Boulevard near Thrifty car rental on April 16, 2015, at 6:53am, when he was struck by a black Hummer that drove off at high speed after hitting him. Bystanders rushed to his assistance and paramedics attended, but nothing could be done to save him as he was killed instantly. He left behind a wife and three children.
The suspect turned himself in to authorities that same day at 7:30pm. He was arrested immediately and taken into custody. He was released after spending 25 days in pre-trial detention but has to adhere to several requirements, such as reporting to the Parole Board.
Survey
Upon the defence’s request a survey was held at the scene of the crime on Tuesday for the Judge, who is from Aruba, to acquaint himself with the local situation.
The defendant said he considered himself responsible for Manek’s death, which he said had shocked him. He told the Court he had been working at Platinum Room in Maho, where he is a bartender, between 10:00pm and 5:30am.
He denied he had been drinking or consumed cocaine or any other drug. He said he went to his home in Almond Grove after work. He couldn’t sleep and decided to go to Mullet Bay for a swim.
He told the Court he had no recollection of what had transpired prior and during the fatal accident and said he did not think he fell asleep behind the wheel. He stated he suddenly hit a person who was standing or walking on the right side of the road and that he had no knowledge of where the pedestrian had come from.
He said he had stopped his car and walked back to where the victim was. He panicked when he had the impression the man was dead. He left as he was afraid that bystanders would turn against him.
Other road users stated the Hummer’s driver was speeding and was overtaking two other vehicles as he hit the man who was jogging on the side of the road. The Prosecutor showed video-surveillance footage from several car rental agencies along Airport Boulevard in proving that C. had indeed overtaken two cars in his Hummer on the narrow stretch of road while driving from the Causeway bridge into the airport’s direction.
Tire marks were found on the roadside and the damage to the Hummer match with the scratches and samples of paint on the guardrail, the Prosecutor said. The vehicle’s damaged hood and bull bar were indications that a pedestrian had been hit.
According to the Prosecutor, the defendant had been driving at a speed of over 60 kilometres per hour on a stretch of road where only 50 kilometres is permitted.
Visibly emotional
The defendant, who was visibly emotional during the hearing, denied he had been under the influence while driving, but admitted he had been drinking six bottles of beer and a lemonade glass full of whisky to calm down after the accident.
Blood samples were taken with C.’s permission. Investigations by a laboratory in French St. Martin revealed a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 1.41, which is well above the punishable lower limit of 0,5. The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) found a level of between 1.2 and 3.3 BAC.
The Prosecutor concluded that the defendant had made five traffic violations and had been driving recklessly and very incautious. He was found guilty of driving under the influence; speeding and failure to keep a safe distance; committing a hit-and-run, overtaking a vehicle while endangering other road users; and of driving on the left side and on the left shoulder of the road where the victim was jogging.
Nevertheless, the Prosecutor did not arrive at the conclusion that the suspect had deliberately committed these violations. He is a first offender and has a valid driver’s license.
Lemmers read out a written statement by the victim’s family, who said the “unbearable” unnatural death of their relative had shattered their world. “He died while doing what he loved: jogging. A gentle soul has been taken from this world,” they said.
The suspect’s defence team, consisting of attorneys Eldon Sulvaran and Paula Janssen pleaded for their client’s acquittal. Sulvaran extensively pleaded with the Court to declare the Prosecutor’s case against C. inadmissible for a number of violations of rights and because the case file was largely based on “probabilities.”
Among violations were the fact that C. was denied access to a lawyer in the early stages of the investigations, which rendered the blood and urine samples taken from his client illegitimate, according to Sulvaran.
The lawyer also objected to claims that his client had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs prior to the accident. He also said witnesses had mixed up his client’s black Hummer with a black pick-up truck which was driving in front of his client on the same stretch of road.
Sulvaran admitted that his client had been the driver of the car that hit Manek, but added that his client could not be made any criminal reproaches. ”My client was not excessively tired,” the lawyer said.
Guesswork
The defence also stated that speeding could not be established as it was based on “guesswork,” whereas the statements about alcohol usage were “unreliable.”
Sulvaran admitted that it could be held against his client that he had been driving dangerously while overtaking a pick-up on a priority road, “but this does not constitute reckless driving.”
The lawyer said his client, who is an experienced and damage-free driver of 13 years, should be acquitted of all charges as he had never wanted, sought or accepted the victim’s death. “My client should have waited a moment before overtaking a vehicle, but this infraction does not mean he had been seriously incautious,” Sulvaran claimed.
The lawyer also objected to confiscation of the Hummer, as the vehicle was not his client’s property but, in fact, owned by his father.
At the end of the trial the suspect addressed the victim’s bereaved in a written statement in French. He offered his apologies and regrets for what had happened. “I am very sorry from the bottom of my heart,” he said. The Court will give its decision February 10.
