Bryan “Soldier Barry” Barrington, one of the men detained in 2011 in connection with an alleged plot to kill then prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and members of her Cabinet, has secured a significant legal victory against the State in his attempt to be compensated for what he claims was a wrongful arrest and breach of his constitutional rights.
Barrington, a former member of the T&T Defence Force (TTDF), and 12 others were arrested separately during the 2011 State of Emergency in connection with the high-profile assassination plot.
The 13 men were all eventually released without being charged.
Barrington filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General over the situation and is seeking damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and several breaches of his constitutional rights.
The Attorney General did not file a defence to the claim and instead applied to have Barrington’s lawsuit struck out stating it was an “abuse of process.”
High Court Judge Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell on April 20, however, dismissed the Attorney General’s application to strike out Barrington’s claim.
The Attorney General must now file a defence in the matter, Donaldson-Honeywell ruled.
On November 21, 2011, while at his Partap Trace, South Oropouche, home, Barrington was arrested by “approximately 15 masked police officers,” according to his statement of case filed in the High Court on October 23, last year.
Barrington said he was “not informed of the reason for his arrest.”
He was taken to the Marabella Police Station for 30 minutes and then to the Woodbrook Police Station where he was imprisoned for six days.
On November 27, 2011, Barrington was transferred to the Golden Grove Prison in Arouca where he was “interrogated by several police officers.”
The following day, he was moved to the Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) in Aripo.
On December 6, 2011, he was eventually released from the IDC “without having been told the reason” for his detention, Barrington stated.
In the state’s attempt to strike out Barrington’s claim the affidavit of Javier Forrester, an attorney at the Chief State Solicitor’s Department, was filed.
Forrester outlined the legal authority of the officers to arrest and detain under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Regulations (EPR) 2011 which were in force at the time of Barrington’s detention.
Forrester stated the “proper procedure” under the EPR 2011 for review of Barrington’s detention was the Review Tribunal established under the Act.
An affidavit by then deputy police commissioner Mervyn Richardson stated that Barrington was “suspected to be involved in a plot to assassinate” Persad-Bissessar and others.
As a result of this, Richardson said he was “satisfied” with Barrington’s initial detention because it “was necessary under the EPR to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or public safety.” Richardson said on November 22 he signed an Authorisation Notice extending Barrington’s detention for a further seven days.
On November 29, 2011, a detention order under Regulation 17 Second Schedule 1 (1) of the EPR was issued by then minister of national security John Sandy.
Richardson said that order was served to Barrington around 4.45 pm the same day it was issued.
Barrington denied being served with “any document regarding either the seven day extension allegedly authorised by Richardson or the detention order of Sandy”.
“Further (Barrington) alleges that he was never informed of his rights under the EPR during his detention,” the judgment stated.
The State said Barrington should not have approached the courts with his claims.
“It is argued that there was no basis for this claim to have been filed when the EPR specifically restricts the rights of persons detained to bring legal action to seek relief arising from their detention,” according to the Attorney General, the judgment stated.
The Attorney General stated Barrington’s “entire period of detention was in fact lawful as the procedures outlined in the EPR 2011 were properly followed.
Donaldson-Honeywell stated “strict compliance with the EPR” was required for Barrington’s three periods of detention.
“Accordingly, the application to strike out the claim is dismissed and the Defendant (the Attorney General) must file a Defence. Thereafter further directions will be considered including whether the affidavits filed thus far by the Defendant in support of the application to strike out can stand as the evidence of the Defendant or whether the State’s evidence will be supplemented by additional sworn statements. There will be no order as to costs based on the Claimant’s (Barrington) failure to file written submissions within the time directed,” Donaldson-Honeywell ruled.
Attorney Abdel Ashraph appeared for Barrington while Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon, Coreen Findley, Javier Forrester and Ryan Grant appeared for the Attorney General.