Life sentence for man who stalked, murdered ex-girlfriend was justified: Supreme Court

Courts may impose a life sentence on defendants convicted of severe violent crimes even if they require psychiatric care, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The verdict was part of an appeal filed by Roberto H., who was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend on a Kerkrade street in 2019. Now about 59 years of age, H. was given a sentence of life in prison by the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch in 2024 for the brutal murder of 42-year-old Reagan Perez.

Perez had ended the relationship with H. four months before she was attacked in broad daylight. The baker had filed charges against H. numerous times because he repeatedly threatened her, and told others he planned to kill her. She was involved in a relationship with another man, and had a restraining order against H. when she was killed.

H. got around the restraining order by asking a friend to order a cake from his Perez, and he joined his friend when she went to pay for the cake. H. stabbed her with a meat cleaver in her garden, and then slit her throat on the sidewalk in front of witnesses.

Initially, a lower court in Maastricht sentenced the man to 20 years in jail and mandatory psychiatric treatment. Both prosecutors and H. filed appeals at the time. H. appealed against the life sentence, arguing it should not be an option for the court when a defendant requires psychiatric care.

The defendant argued the tough sentence violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes stipulations that inhuman or degrading punishment is not allowed. His legal team built a case meant to demonstrate H.’s need for psychiatric care to prepare him for an eventual release, and the prospect of re-integrating into society.

But the previous ruling by the appellate court also noted that H. was previously convicted of a capital offense, and murdered Perez even after seven years in prison and 13 years of court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or TBS measure. “The man’s life shows a pattern of severe violence and antisocial behavior,” that court stated. “The defendant consistently blamed the victim and never took responsibility for his actions. As a result, the defendant increased the suffering of the bereaved.”

The independent Advocate General disagreed with H. in advice provided to the Supreme Court, saying that a guilty verdict and life sentence were both justified. The Supreme Court denied H.’s appeal on Tuesday.

“In this case, the Appeals Court imposed a life sentence, considering, among other things, the extreme seriousness of the crime and the aim of the sentence to protect society from more violent behavior by this defendant. In doing so, the court considered the defendant’s previous violent behavior, the high risk of recidivism, and the fact that a TBS measure would not sufficiently reduce this risk of recurrence, among other aspects,” the Supreme Court stated.
The court emphasized that psychiatric care was also being provided to H., and that it would be available for the duration of the sentence.