Robin Barrett asks court to exclude evidence
Police executing a search warrant at former priest’s home allegedly found images of child pornography on his computer
Graphic content warning: this article contains details that may be disturbing to some readers.
Standing in the witness box Monday, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Const. Terry Follett used his arms to demonstrate the size of a police battering ram and how officers might use it to force their way inside a residence of a suspected child pornographer.
It’s a piece of steel, about two feet long and weighing 30 or 40 pounds, Follett said.
“There are handles on it and you carry it with two hands and hit the door, ideally where the doorknob is, and the door comes open,” Follett said, mimicking a swinging motion.
Follett had given one of his team members instruction to use the ram on the side door of Robin Barrett’s Conception Bay South home on July10, 2015. At that point, Follett had done what he described as a “hammerfist” knock six or eight times and had shouted to let Barrett know there were police officers outside with a warrant to search his home.
Time is always of the essence in child pornography investigations, Follett said, because those accused might be apt to flush a camera card down the toilet or delete computer files as police are on their doorstep. In Barrett’s case, the investigator explained, he had been convicted of child pornography offences before and would have had some insight into how police operate.
When the ram cracked the door frame and the door opened, Follett saw Barrett standing in a hallway in a bathrobe and underwear, he testified.
Follett told the court he had received an email from a police detective in Ontario about Barrett’s alleged participation in downloading and sharing child pornography online. Barrett, a former Anglican priest, was known to police as a sex offender: he had pleaded guilty in 2010 to possessing and distributing child pornography after police found thousands of images and videos of the material on his computer data, some depicting children as young as six months old. He was sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison and named to the national sex offender registry for life.
After obtaining a warrant to search Barrett’s home, Follett and his team went there just before 9 a.m., breaking down his door. As Follett went with him into the living room, other officers began documenting the rooms in the house and looking for electronics. Two civilian forensics experts set up a desk in the kitchen, where objects were reviewed for forensic value.
Sgt. Lisa Harris, then a constable, described for Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Mcgrath how she had taken photos of every room in the house and the items seized from each, including the spare bedroom, which Barrett had seemingly been using as a computer room.
A wallpaper border of pandas and balloons decorated the wall, she said, while the desktop computer screen showed active photos of child exploitation, photos of adult nudity, a chat log, a folder entitled “Randy Rob” — reportedly a username Barrett had used in the past — and files in the process of downloading, with names like “Tara-11yr” and others that indicated child exploitation.
Police found eight or 10 USB drives, Harris said, as well as a laptop, a number of CDS, DVDS, VHS tapes and floppy disks, a camera and an SD card. In a chest in the master bedroom were books and magazines, including novels that dealt with child pornography. In the computer room was a newspaper clipping, Harris said, a 2011 Associated Press article about sex offender John Wrenchall, with the headline, “Canadian pleads guilty to running child sex ring in Thailand.”
As officers were collecting and documenting items, Follett read Barrett his rights, and Barrett indicated he wanted to speak with a lawyer. Later, he asked if he could get dressed, so Follett accompanied him to his bedroom.
“Once we were in the room, Mr. Barrett let out a big sigh and hung his head, looked defeated, his shoulders dropped. It looked to me like he wanted to talk. I mistakenly asked him how long he had downloaded child pornography and where he had served his time for his previous criminal charges.
“Why did you ask him that before he spoke with counsel?” prosecutor Shawn Patten asked Follett in court.
“It was just something that happened really quickly. It wasn’t my intention to ask Mr. Barrett any questions. I thought he wanted to speak to me, but I shouldn’t have said anything. It was just something that happened quickly.”
Barrett was charged with accessing, possessing and distributing child pornography after that day, but was acquitted of the charges in June 2018, after a judge ruled the majority of the evidence against him — everything seized after Follett breached his rights by asking him a question before he had spoken to a lawyer, was inadmissible.
Patten and defence lawyer Mark Gruchy had agreed to make their submissions on the exclusion of the evidence in two parts, but the judge at that time had decided on the issue before the second part was complete.
The Crown appealed Barrett’s acquittal, saying the trial judge shouldn’t have excluded the evidence nor ruled before submissions were complete.
Even though his client had won the case, Gruchy agreed on the second point alone that a new trial was appropriate. The province’s Court of Appeal determined the original judge had made a “fatal” error that could have affected the verdicts, and ordered a new trial for Barrett.
Before that happens, Gruchy is arguing an application to have the evidence excluded a second time, on the basis that it breached his client’s protected rights. He spent much of his time crossexamining Harris Monday focusing on the use of the ram in Barrett’s case and why it was seen as necessary after waiting just 10 or 15 seconds for him to open the door.
The ram is not used in every search execution, Harris explained.
“Do you always get to the door within 10 to 15 seconds when there’s a knock?” Gruchy asked.
“No,” Harris replied. “Why would it be reasonable for someone else to?” Gruchy asked.
“It wasn’t a reasonable time for him to answer the door, it was a reasonable time for us to be concerned for the evidence,” Harris replied.
The defence’s application hearing will continue in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Tuesday, with Barrett expected to give evidence at some point.