Appeal court says contesting charges should not penalise an accused person

A Dutchman jailed for 20 years and fined Lm40,000 has had his jail term reduced to 15 years and his fine to Lm25,000 after the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that he should not be penalised for contesting the charges brought against him.

Jurors in the trial of Perry Ingomar Toornstra, 27, had found him guilty of drug conspiracy by eight votes to one and of importing some 4,400 ecstasy pills by seven votes to two.

But Toornstra appealed, claiming that jurors had returned an incorrect verdict in finding him guilty and that, in any case, the punishment handed down by the Criminal Court was excessive.

He argued that there was a considerable disparity between his punishment and that of Roland Smits and Patrick Woudenberg, who were co-accused with him and had been jailed for eight years and fined Lm20,000 when they filed a guilty plea to the same charges.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided by Chief Justice Vincent DeGaetano, Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti and Mr Justice David Scicluna, ruled they were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence brought before the jury to allow jurors to reach a verdict in a reasonable manner and that jurors had reached it in a legitimate manner. The judges also noted that although in view of the nature of the crime Smits' and Woudenberg's punishment "was rather on the lower side of the scale... the disparity between the punishments [was] so substantial that a manifestly unjust situation had been created..."

The court noted that "any person accused has a right to contest charges brought against him" and were the court not to reduce Toornstra's punishment it would be allowing a manifestly excessive punishment for having contested the charges.