State admits gun dealer's retrieval from Barbados was unlawful

THE STATE has formally gone on record admitting that the detention and return of firearm dealer Brent Thomas from Barbados in 2022 was unlawful.

The admission was made at a hearing on July 24, of the Attorney General’s appeal of a High Court judge’s ruling that permanently stayed all criminal charges against the 61-year-old owner of Specialist Shooters Training Centre.

In April 2023, Rampersad ruled that Thomas’s arrest in Barbados in 2022 was unlawful and the actions of the State contravened the businessman’s rights. A month later, the State appealed the decision, claiming the judge erred in law. Rampersad was faulted for wrongly applying the law on the extra-territorial conduct of what took place in Barbados on October 5, 2022.

On April 7, Sunday Newsday reported the Barbados government accepted liability for Thomas’ “forcible removal” from his hotel room by its police.

On July 24, Peter Knox, KC, the lead attorney for the Attorney General, conceded the illegal arrest point before Justices of Appeal Prakash Moosai, Charmaine Pemberton and Mira Dean-Armorer at a hearing at the Waterfront Judicial Centre, Port of Spain. He has also suggested amending the judge’s declaration on the forced retrieval, replacing the “State” with that of the TT Police Service.

The judges have reserved their ruling after hearing more than five hours of submissions in the packed courtroom on the ninth floor of Tower D.

In its appeal, the Attorney General faulted other portions of the judge’s findings and declarations on the procuring of six search warrants which led to Thomas’s arrest on two occasions. He was released on October 2, 2022, on an order of the High Court after his first arrest in September 29. After his release, he travelled to Barbados enroute to Miami for medical treatent.

After he was handed over to TT police at the Grantley Adams International Airport and brought back to TT, Thomas was charged with possession of four grenades, two Sig Sauer rifles and a Skorpion rifle, all of which are prohibited under the Firearms Act.

Knox provided a chronology of events that led to Thomas’s arrest, focusing on the evidence of the police officers who obtained the search warrants for his business place and his Maraval home.

He said the police, at all times, were acting on reasonable grounds of suspicion.

Knox admitted the process to bring Thomas back to Trinidad should have been handled by way of extradition, but he reminded, “The important point is that the respondent was a fugitive of justice.”

Knox also said the judge’s findings did not justify the staying of the charges against Thomas.

“We accept we acted unconstitutionally in his arrest but we do not accept the consequences of the judgment.

“It is not for a constitutional court to intervene like this in a criminal prosecution. Charges were laid after an investigation.” Knox also said the Constitution only vested the power to discontinue criminal charges with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

“It was wrong for the constitutional court to step in and take over the DPP’s power. That is not the role of the constitutional court. There was no need to stay the criminal proceedings to give constitutional redress.”

Knox also said many of the judge’s declarations that dealt with the search warrants were unexplainable.

“It was clear that the TTPS had reasonable grounds.

“It was not open to the judge to find there was no basis on the procuring of the warrant…There was no evidence the warrants were obtained illegally and no rationale for the judge’s findings.”

He also said the judge’s declaration on the lockdown of Thomas’ business was also wrong while questioning its relevance since it was not featured in Thomas’ original claim.

In the DPP’s appeal, Senior Counsel Ian Benjamin argued that the judge did not properly consider the provisions of the Firearms Act and the public interest factors.

Benjamin said guidance should be given to the courts, other stakeholders including firearm user’s licence holders, firearm dealers and the police, on the correct interpretation of the Firearms Act.

“The judge did not construe the provisions at all.”

He said the Firearms Act did not allow anyone to have a prohibited weapon unless they were the police, a member of the defence force, the director of the Forensic Science Centre, a customs officer or a prison officer.

“There is no room for getting a permit for a prohibited weapon.”

He reminded that the charges against Thomas were for illegal possession, not importation.

“Were these import permits issued legally in the first place? The judge did not get to that. There was no proper statutory analysis or construction.”

He added, “He granted a declaration he ought not to have and did not give consideration to if the respondents were lawfully permitted to have those weapons. This is in defiance of the act which provides an outright blanket prohibition for possession of prohibited weapons. There was no foundational reasoning to support the declaratory relief.”

In reply, Thomas’ attorney Fyard Hosein, SC, attempted to pick holes in the positions of the AG and DPP. He said there was no justifiable basis for the procurement of the search warrants and the judge correctly ordered a stay on the criminal case. He also said Thomas’ admission to the police during the investigation that he had the alleged prohibited weapons was not an admission of guilt.

“He was granted import permits for all the weapons he was charged for being in possession of.

There were no charges on the import of the weapons… The search warrants talk about alleged breaches of import permits.”

Hosein said the police went on a frolic of their own. He said the grenades were non-lethal and the firearms were demonstration items for the police and army which Thomas had been permitted to import by the commissioner.

Hosein said the army purchased 300 Sig Sauer rifles from Thomas and 90 per cent of the automatic weapons he had sold were to the police.

“Members of the security services are entitled to have these classes of weapons but how are you going to allow them into the country? How will the army import them?”

Hosein said over the two decades, five commissioners of police authorised Thomas to import the weapons.

He said the State, including the police, would have had possession of the various registries including the police’s firearms unit, and the comptroller of Customs when the weapons were imported.

“Why did they not revoke the import permits?"

Hosein said there was a lacuna in the legislation on the importation and possession of prohibited weapons.

“That is where the abuse starts.

“At the very least, the commissioner and the others aided and abetted in what they have accused him of… It was ridiculous and in bad faith to go after this individual.

“Why the invasive search warrants which violated the basic principles of search-warrant law?”

Focusing on Thomas’ retrieval from Barbados, Hosein said it was astonishing since his client wrote to the police informing him of his travel plans.

“The stay was granted because of the failure of the State to act with candour. They did not provide details on the abduction. We do not know who was behind this dastardly act. But they have now resiled on that but they are liable for their (the police’s) actions.

“You cannot let the police alone take the rap. It could show that the police acted at the behest of someone else. The police cannot just leave the country…” he charged, but had to be warned by one of the judges about going further with his accusations.

However, he said, “The arm of the executive colluded with someone in Barbados, which has now admitted liability and participated in actions that have undermined the criminal justice system.

"They did not engage in the extradition process but used executive intervention for kidnapping and abduction. If this is allowed to continue it will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute.”

He also urged the court against allowing itself to be used by the Executive to undermine the rule of law and condone the actions of the police in Thomas’kidnapping and abduction.

“The Executive sought to bypass the judicial process. The abduction was an affront to the public conscience but wouldn’t the court have to consider if the continuation of the prosecution was also an affront?

“The abduction affects the prosecution. Abduction and entrapment invariably lead to a stay.

“What was the emergency? He was going to return. You permitted him to import these weapons..."

In his legal action against Barbados, Thomas has sought information on who gave the directions which led to his unlawful abduction.

In November 2022, Thomas filed a constitutional claim against the State and sued over the criminal charges against him. In staying the latter, Rampersad condemned the police officers, both locally and from Barbados, for their method of capturing and bringing Thomas back to TT.

Rampersad is also expected to decide on compensation which could also be substantial, but the State has appealed certain aspects of the court’s award of damages.

Thomas claimed he was on his way to visit his US cardiologist and stopped over in Barbados when he was detained at his hotel, handcuffed and handed over to three officers assigned to TT’s Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) on the tarmac of the Grantley Adams International Airport.

It was alleged by the then PSB’s head Suzette Martin, now a deputy commissioner, that Thomas intended to travel to Greece.

Also appearing for the AG are Vanessa Gopaul, Svetlana Dass, Adana Hosang, and Lianne Thomas.

Appearing with Benjamin for the DPP is Tekiyah Jorsling. Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Anil Maraj and Aadam Hosein also represent Thomas.