Brooks & Associates

Clear advice, steady advocacy, and a deep understanding of the law have earned Brooks & Associates top recognition once again. In The Daily Herald Best Of awards for 2025, the firm was voted Best Law Firm on the island, a reflection of the confidence and trust placed in its work by the community.

Brooks & Associates is widely respected for delivering legal services that balance professionalism with a personal approach. The firm handles a broad range of legal matters, serving individuals, families, and businesses with careful attention to detail and a strong commitment to ethical practice. Clients often value the firm’s ability to explain complex legal issues clearly while providing practical, solution-oriented guidance.

Over the years, Brooks & Associates has built a reputation for consistency and reliability, supported by a dedicated team that understands both the legal landscape and the local context in which it operates. That combination has made the firm a steady presence in moments that matter most to its clients.

Winning Best Law Firm for 2025 is more than an accolade, it underscores a continued standard of excellence. For many on St. Maarten, Brooks and Associates remains a trusted partner in navigating the law with confidence and care.

Agenda

• Introduction and purpose of the live session 00:01 – 00:54
• Laws of St. Martin regarding French side nationals working at Princess Juliana Airport 00:54 – 02:32
• National Ordinance on Employment of Foreign Laborers 02:54 – 04:38
• Concordia Treaty of 1648 10:10 – 13:30
• National Ordinance on Old Age Pension 03:30 – 03:35
• Implications of forcing French side workers to get work permits and register on Dutch side 29:56 – 32:36
• Potential solutions and recommendations 34:01 – 37:31
• Q&A session 45:31 – 57:33
  

Topic Discussed

Laws regarding French side nationals working at Princess Juliana Airport

Brenda Brooks discusses the current situation where French side nationals have been working at Princess Juliana Airport for years without work permits. She explains that this practice has been tolerated based on the spirit of the Concordia Treaty of 1648, which allowed for free movement between the French and Dutch sides of the island. However, recent legislation is now requiring these workers to obtain work permits and, by extension, residence permits. 00:54 – 02:32

Brooks argues that forcing these workers to suddenly obtain permits and register on the Dutch side could have far-reaching consequences. She emphasizes that this approach could lead to inflating the census numbers on the Dutch side, potentially affecting parliamentary representation and budgeting. 29:56 – 32:36

National Ordinance on Employment of Foreign Laborers

Brooks provides a detailed explanation of the National Ordinance on Employment of Foreign Laborers, highlighting the categories of people exempt from requiring work permits. These include Dutch nationals, Americans (based on the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty), and certain other categories. She suggests that French side workers could potentially be included under a category that exempts persons based on international agreements. 02:54 – 04:38

Concordia Treaty of 1648

The speaker discusses the historical significance of the Concordia Treaty, which divided the island between the French and Dutch. She emphasizes that the treaty guaranteed mutual friendship, cooperation, and free movement of persons, goods, and services. Brooks argues that while some may question the treaty’s current validity, recent court decisions have referenced it, indicating its continued relevance. 10:10 – 13:30

National Ordinance on Old Age Pension

Brooks explains that French side workers do not necessarily need to be registered on the Dutch side to receive a pension. She clarifies that being assessed for income tax as a taxpayer on the Dutch side is sufficient for pension eligibility. She encourages French side workers to file their taxes on the Dutch side to ensure their pension rights. 03:30 – 03:35, 42:38 – 43:58

Potential Solutions and Recommendations

The speaker proposes several potential solutions to address the current situation:

1. Amend the law to specifically exempt French nationals born on the French side of St. Martin from work permit requirements.
2. Interpret existing laws more flexibly to accommodate the unique situation of St. Martin.
3. Involve multiple government ministries in discussions to find a comprehensive solution.
4. Encourage French side workers to file taxes on the Dutch side to secure their pension rights without forcing them to register as residents. 34:01 – 37:31

Actions

1. Government ministries (Labor, Justice, General Affairs, Finance, VROMI) to convene a meeting to discuss comprehensive solutions for French side workers at the airport. 34:01 – 35:08
   Deadline: As soon as possible
2. Legislators to consider amending the National Ordinance on Employment of Foreign Laborers to specifically exempt French nationals born on the French side of St. Martin. 37:31 – 38:03
   Deadline: Next parliamentary session
3. French side workers to start filing income tax returns on the Dutch side to secure their pension rights. 42:38 – 43:58
   Deadline: Before the next tax filing deadline
4. Airport management to continue allowing French side workers to work while solutions are being discussed. 56:14 – 56:39
   Deadline: Ongoing
5. Legal experts to prepare arguments supporting the continued validity and applicability of the Concordia Treaty. 11:30 – 13:30
   Deadline: Before any potential court challenges

Insights

Problem 1: Requirement for French side workers to obtain work permits
The sudden requirement for long-standing French side workers at Princess Juliana Airport to obtain work permits is causing stress and uncertainty. 14:51 – 15:28

Proposed Solutions:

• Amend the National Ordinance on Employment of Foreign Laborers to specifically exempt French nationals born on the French side of St. Martin. 37:31 – 38:03
• Interpret existing laws more flexibly, considering the spirit of the Concordia Treaty and the unique situation of St. Martin. 34:01 – 34:38

Problem 2: Potential inflation of census numbers on the Dutch side

Forcing French side workers to register on the Dutch side could artificially inflate census numbers, potentially affecting parliamentary representation and budgeting. 30:31 – 32:36

Proposed Solution:

• Find a legal solution that allows French side workers to continue working without requiring them to register as residents on the Dutch side. 35:54 – 36:33

Problem 3: Uncertainty about pension rights for French side workers

There is confusion about whether French side workers are eligible for pensions on the Dutch side without being registered residents. 42:38 – 43:04

Proposed Solution:

• Clarify that French side workers can secure their pension rights by filing income tax returns on the Dutch side, without needing to register as residents. 43:04 – 43:58

Problem 4: Lack of comprehensive approach to addressing the issue

The current approach to addressing the work permit issue does not involve all relevant government ministries and stakeholders. 34:01 – 35:08

Proposed Solution:

• Convene a meeting involving multiple government ministries (Labor, Justice, General Affairs, Finance, VROMI) to find a comprehensive solution that addresses all aspects of the issue. 34:01 – 35:08

Problem 5: Potential violation of the spirit of the Concordia Treaty

Requiring work permits for French side nationals may violate the spirit of the Concordia Treaty, which allowed for free movement between the French and Dutch sides. 10:10 – 13:30

Proposed Solution:

• Reaffirm the relevance of the Concordia Treaty in modern times and use it as a basis for creating policies that respect the historical agreement between the French and Dutch sides. 11:30 – 13:30

Court Strikes Down Minister’s Unlawful power.

The Offices of Brooks & Associates recently secured another precedent setting judgment from the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and BES, involving the controversial 2022 immigration raids that took place in the first half of 2022. Undocumented persons were arrested and detained and placed in the immigration detention cells for at times over a month without being heard. This prompted challenge from numerous legal counsel representing the detained persons.

The Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten consistently ruled that the arrests were unlawful, ordering the government to pay legal fees and damages to those persons. Brooks & Associates successfully represented several of those cases, but one, case became a protracted legal battle. An immigrant residing in Sint Maarten for over 30 years, had repeatedly sought residency but was unsuccessful. During the 2022 raids, he was arrested, despite living with his Dutch wife and daughter, and was eventually deported two months later. His deportation order barred him from entering Sint Maarten for three years, declaring him undesirable as a threat to the public order, what is known in Dutch as a “ongewenst verklaring”.

Brooks & Associates appealed both the detention and the deportation. The Court of First Instance considered the detention unlawful, but upheld the deportation, the three-year ban and declaration of undesirability, dismissing humanitarian considerations. The ruling was appealed.

On September 30, 2024, the Joint Court of Justice heard the case. Reference was made to various human rights laws, including rulings from the European Court of Human Rights on the right to family life that should have been taken into consideration in the case. However, rather than look into this aspect of the case, the Joint Court of Justice looked into a more pertinent matter that serves as the fundamental principle of good governance, the principle of legality. Although the current immigration legislation allowed the Minister to authorize the deportation of an undocumented person, the law does not make reference to a three-year ban or a declaration of undesirability. The Court of First Instance had already ruled in 2024 that the Minister lacked such authority, a decision that was appealed by the Minister’s counsel.

The Joint Court of Justice took the opportunity to address such a complex issue in this case, allowing counsel (on both sides) to present further arguments. We argued in a nutshell that only a national ordinance could attribute the necessary competency to the Minister of Justice to issue a three-year ban and a declaration of undesirability. The Minister countered by arguing that such authority, although not explicitly granted by law, was necessary to control immigration and that Sint Maarten has adopted the practice for so long, it is factually a part of the legal framework.

While the Joint Court of Justice acknowledged the Minister’s position, it emphasized the principle of legality, even overturning its own previous rulings from years ago on this subject matter. The Joint Court of Justice determined that the Minister must be explicitly granted authority by law—not policy—to impose a three-year travel ban or declare someone as an undesirable alien. In this case, the Minister was found not competent to issue such measure against the immigrant, and the deportation order was annulled in its entirety. The Joint Court of Justice also ordered the Government to pay the legal fees in the case.

The Court did not find conclusive evidence of an effective family life in this case but noted that the right to family life should be considered in such decisions. This ruling marks a significant shift, as previous Ministers had maintained that family life was irrelevant when the individual was undocumented.

The case underscores the shortcomings of Sint Maarten’s immigration laws, which are outdated and out of step with modern human rights standards. The current Minister of Justice now faces the challenge of enforcing immigration laws that allow deportation but do not prevent individuals from simply returning to Sint Maarten. In the view of Brooks & Associates, the ruling signals a move toward aligning Sint Maarten’s legal immigration framework with Kingdom and international human rights standards, as only relying on an outdated policy, rather than updating the relevant national ordinances, diminishes the competencies of our current and future Ministers of Justice.

Ultimately, the 2022 raids, and the subsequent arrests, detentions, and deportations, were deemed unlawful in their entirety, thanks in part to the work of Brooks & Associates. This case serves as a reminder of the need for comprehensive reform in Sint Maarten’s immigration policies to protect individuals’ rights and ensure legality.

On Friday February 14, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.

Ashton Richardson took the oath as Attorney at Law before the Joint Court of Justice of Curaçao, Aruba, Sint Maarten and the BES Islands in a heartfelt hearing, chaired by the Vice President of the Joint Court of Justice, Judge Gertjan Wouters. During the ceremony Ashton was surrounded by the Honorable Prime Minister Luc Mercelina, the Honorable Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling, Judge J. Nosworthy from the International Tribunal of the former Yogoslavia, his mentor, Attorney Brenda Brooks, his family, close childhood friends, colleagues from Brooks & Associates and other local professionals.

Ashton’s story is a bit of an inspiration to us all. Born and raised on Sint Maarten, he is a true son of the soil. Ashton was raised by his mother, Mariana Viera, and grandmother(s) who worked tirelessly to ensure that he had the opportunities to acquire a quality education. Ashton is deeply rooted in his community, having attended Dutch public schools on the island. After completing his secondary education, he pursued a bachelor’s degree in law at The Hague University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. Ashton then acquired the distinct opportunity to work as an intern for five judges, and an elite team of international attorneys, at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Trial Chambers (S.T.L.). One judge, of Caribbean descent, for whom he worked for, played a pivotal role in reinforcing his tenacity to pursue his lifelong dream to serve as a judge for an international tribunal, by mentoring him during his tenure at the S.T.L.
With his reinvigorated ambition he pursued and earned a Master’s degree in Global Criminal Law and Organized Crime, with an honors in leadership, from the University of Groningen. After achieving his master’s degree, he followed his mentor’s advice and returned to Sint Maarten to gain domestic legal experience.

Upon returning to Sint Maarten, he joined Brooks & Associates as a junior legal professional. However, he encountered an unexpected challenge when the Joint Court of Justice declined to swear him in as an attorney due to the non-recognition of the courses acquired during the bachelor studies. Determined to overcome this obstacle, Ashton enrolled at the University of Curaçao, attending online classes for four years while working full-time.

Despite this setback, Ashton continued to work and serve his community, finding a specialty in administrative law and human rights, in particular, immigration law. As a child Ashton would at times accompany his mother, who worked in corporate administration for numerous companies on Sint Maarten, to work, where among her many tasks, was assisting undocumented persons to file for their residency permit and/or acquire the relevant labor permit. Now, over 15 years later, Ashton, in addition to providing other legal services, also assists undocumented persons to acquire their residency permit in and out of court, achieving a 97% success rate.

His contributions to the Sint Maarten community include securing and assisting in precedent setting court judgments in immigration and human rights cases, contributing to the jurisprudence and opinio juris in the Dutch legal field. Ashton also contributes to Sint Maarten socially by collaborating with the department of Community Development, Family & Humanitarian Affairs (CDFHA), and other similar organisations and educational institutions, by providing immigration information sessions, consultation days for those who have limited access to legal recourse/resources and provide career guidance to teens and young adults.

As Ashton Richardson stands today as an Attorney at law, his journey is a testament to the power of perseverance, dedication, and unwavering commitment to his community and his dreams. From humble beginnings on Sint Maarten to overcoming countless obstacles, Ashton’s story so far is a story of tenacity and is a powerful reminder that no challenge is insurmountable when fuelled by passion and purpose. As Ashton begins this new chapter in his career, he remains committed to offering the one thing he can always guarantee to those around him—his best.

A Landmark Victory Against Domestic Violence in Sint Maarten

In 2024, the Offices of Brooks & Associates established yet another precedent at the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and the BES Islands, tackling critical issues involving immigration, domestic violence, and women’s rights.

In the case of Castillo vs. the Minister of Justice of Sint Maarten, originating from events in 2021, a woman fled her marital home with police assistance due to physical and mental domestic abuse. The Minister of Justice at the time denied the applicant’s request for an extension of her residency permit, citing the fact that she no longer resided with her (ex-)husband, who was her guarantor. Despite the applicant’s formal objection, the Minister failed to grant her a hearing, violating the principles of good governance, and upheld the initial decision.

The applicant subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten, where she was represented by Senior Counsel Brenda Brooks and Co-Counsel Ashton Richardson. However, the Court ruled in favor of the Minister, prompting an appeal to the Joint Court of Justice.

During the initial hearing at the Joint Court of Justice, the panel of three judges expressed concern that the applicant had not been afforded the opportunity to be heard, despite the Minister being aware of the domestic abuse situation. Consequently, the Joint Court instructed the Minister to conduct a hearing with the applicant and to provide the Court with an updated position following this process.

After nearly a year of persistent reminders to the Ministry of Justice, a hearing was finally convened with the applicant and her counsel, Ashton Richardson. During the meeting, the Minister of Justice was presented with substantial evidence, including a police report corroborating the applicant’s account, a doctor’s report obtained at the police’s instruction following the incident, and photographs documenting the injuries sustained by the applicant during the physical abuse.

Despite this compelling evidence confirming that the applicant had fled her home with police assistance due to domestic violence, the Minister at the time maintained the rejection of her residency permit. The Minister argued, among other points, that there was insufficient proof of continued domestic abuse and even suggested that the “one-time incident” was potentially a result of the applicant’s alleged infidelity.

In response, Brooks & Associates delivered a comprehensive rebuttal to these claims. After receiving both parties’ submissions, the Joint Court of Justice convened a new hearing, during which the case was argued in detail.

On November 6, 2024, the Joint Court of Justice issued a ruling in favor of the applicant. The Court found that, based on the evidence presented both to the Court and to the Minister, the applicant had successfully proven that she was a victim of physical domestic violence. As a result, the Minister’s decision to deny the applicant’s residency was deemed untenable.

The Court quashed the Minister’s decision and instructed the Minister to issue a new decision within three months of the judgment date. Additionally, the Court ordered the Minister, and by extension Country Sint Maarten, to pay NAf. 3,500.00 in legal fees.

The case highlighted the controversial and unusually rigid stance of the (former) Minister of Justice regarding domestic violence. The Joint Court of Justice firmly rejected the Minister’s argument that domestic violence must be continuous or structural to warrant consideration. The Court appropriately emphasized that any instance of domestic violence—whether a single occurrence or ongoing—is relevant. The key issue is that abuse took place, and no individual should be forced to remain in a harmful relationship simply to retain their residency.

Sint Maarten’s current immigration legislation provides a solution in such cases, offering the possibility of an alternative residency permit for those in similar circumstances.

If you are experiencing domestic violence and feel trapped because your residency permit is tied to your spouse, know that help is available. Contact the Offices of Brooks & Associates for advice. The first step toward liberation begins with you.