The "Battering Ram" Drug Bust
Compiled by retired Det/Superintedent George Rose
INTRODUCTION
The extended saga of efforts to get a notorious heroin pusher into Casemates prison is set out in the case histories below. Robert Fitgerald ‘Jimbo’ Trott had continued his crimes throughout the two-year period under review despite having been arrested and convicted a number of times for relatively minor drug charges thoughout the same period.
The Police raid however on December 21, 1979 at his apartment located within the wooden New York Hotel in Hamilton lays out the inherent difficulties faced by the judicial system as a whole in getting drug pushers behind bars. The following article represents an interesting case in point.
This raid was intelligence driven. Information had been received that Robert "Jimbo" Trott was actively involved in drug dealing; he was living in the New York Hotel; that he had a small yappy dog at the apartment in question and that the entrance door into the lodging was in the process of being strongly reinforced by Trott. With that in mind it was decided to customize a remnant utility pole into a five-foot 'battering ram' requiring two officers to swing the pole in unison. To that end dry-runs with the ‘ram’ were practiced during the days before the raid in the moat at Fort Prospect behind Police Headquarters.
A breach of private premises by this means was the first of its kind by the Bermuda police and, as you will read, the legal ramifications of such action would be probed in the forthcoming court case.
1979
At daybreak, four days before Christmas day 1979, five police narcotics officers led by Det. Sergeant Alexander Arnfield gave only a ten second warning before forcing open the reinforced door to ‘Jimbo’ Trott’s New York Hotel apartment on Victoria Street, Hamilton. The door, complete with heavy-duty hinges, withstood four hits from a five-foot long utility pole before giving way, carrying with it a section of the door frame and abutting wall as the officers made their entry.
As Head of Narcotics at this time I had visited the scene during the closing stages of the raid to meet with the officers and assess the damage caused by the ‘homemade’ battering ram. The hotel, located on the north-western side of Victoria Steet at its junction with Court Street consisted of an aging multi-level wooden structure which had been converted into rented apartments. Soon after the raid the hotel was demolished by the family that owned it.
On termination of the search Trott was arrested and lodged in a holding cell at the Hamilton station. The seized drugs were properly logged, heat sealed and placed in the storage vault in care of the Custodian whereupon we adjourned for breakfast and a debrief at the Arcade restaurant on Reid Street, Hamilton.
Trott appeared in magistrates court on Christmas Eve 1979 on charges of possession of diamorphine intended for supply and possession of cannabis. Electing summary trial and pleading not guilty he was released on bail pending his trial set for February 5th 1980. That trial was adjourned until February 27th 1980 and Trott was again bailed.
1980
The court heard that D/S Arnfield had shouted “Police, open up” as he heard scuffling noises from within. The door was breached and he found Trott on his knees behind the doorway, shouting and waving his arms. He was handcuffed, seated in a kitchen chair and shown the search warrant.
The search had begun in Trott’s bathroom but, explained D/S Arnfield, “His little girl wanted to use the bathroom and we had to search it before it was used.”
During the search of the kitchen D/S Arnfield told the court he saw Trott throw a piece of paper toweling onto the counter top which was found to contain cigarette ends, matches and seeds.
“It looked like the contents of an ashtray and it was seized as evidence.”
A search of Trott’s bedroom was then conducted in the presence of Trott’s wife - KT.
“The room was very cluttered and it took us 55 minutes to do the search,” said D/S Arnfield who was assisted in the search by Dc William Henry. Other officers remained nearby as observers.
On the dresser was found plant material on a piece of paper. This was shown to Trott in the kitchen. When asked if he knew what it was, he replied, “Herb, man.”
A search of clothing on a hook behind the bedroom door revealed a brown striped woolen hat containing a bulky blue tissue with 76 foil wraps of a powdered substance. Dc Henry also found five pay-type envelopes which he showed to Trott who said: “Oh man, that’s my herb.”
When shown the brown striped hat with the bundle inside, Trott had made no reply. The contents were later analyzed by Dr. Raymond Petrie who found it to be 20 percent diamorphine or heroin.
The 76 foil wraps commonly known as “decks” weighed a total of 1.0406 grams and were worth an estimated $1,900 on the street. The cannabis totaled 7.13 grams.
When arrested Trott admitted to Police that the cannabis was his. But he denied any knowledge of the heroin found in his hat which, he said, he had not worn for a year.
He told Police he was not a user of heroin and neither was his wife, who did not even smoke cigarettes.
During her cross-examination Mrs. Priya De Soysa strongly criticized Police for the manner in which they had gained entry to the apartment.
“You never used the doorbell and you gave him seven or ten seconds to come to the door before ramming it,” she said.
D/S Arnfield replied that it took quite a while to ram through the door.
“This was done because shuffling sounds were heard and the door had a peep hole,” he said.
D/S Arnfield denied carrying a mace or baton and beating Trott on the head.
“So it’s a crime to walk around your own apartment to see what’s happening – even if you’ve been handcuffed,” Mrs. De Soysa commented.
[It was revealed that Trott had not been present during the search [of his bedroom] because he was agitated and had kept standing up trying to walk around. Two Police officers had to stand over him to restrain him.]
Mrs. De Soysa contended that Trott could not have seen the search of his bathroom from the kitchen, but D/S Arnfield said his wife and child were present at all times during the search.
“KT was standing in the hallway amongst the wreckage while we searched the toilet,” he said.
D/S Arnfield denied knowing there was a dog behind the door on a chain and he did not know what Trott was doing on his knees.
Mrs. De Soysa noted that Mrs. Trott was arrested along with her husband and was held for three and a half days. D/S Arnfield said Mrs. Trott lived in the same premises but Police had not known who the drug belonged to.
“Mr. Trott was released on December 23rd after he admitted the cannabis was his,” said Mrs. De Soysa.
“Mrs. Trott was interviewed later the same day, but was not released until December 24. Why was she kept after her husband admitted the cannabis was his? Was it for heroin?” Mrs. De Soysa asked.
Mrs. De Soysa put it to D/S Arnfield that after the hat and contents had been found, Mrs. Trott had told him: “You searched my room and you found nothing. Now you say you picked it up off my dresser.”
The narcotics officer later admitted this was so when the comments were pointed out in a statement Mrs. Trott had made to Police.
Mrs. De Soysa further contended that D/S Arnfield had shown Mrs. [D], Trott’s mother-in-law [who was present at the time of the raid], a black hat after searching the bedroom.
“Isn’t it true you showed her the blue tissue with foil papers in a black hat and that you sent one of the officers back to the room and told him ‘No, go and get the brown one?’ she asked.
D/S Arnfield denied this had happened.
“I put it to you that the heroin in the hat was fabricated. That you didn’t know which hat to take and that the wrong hat was taken at the time - a black hat,” Mrs. De Soysa said.
D/S Arnfield said this was “absolutely ridiculous.”
On his defence during an unsworn statement from the dock, Trott told the presiding magistrate that the evidence against him had been fabricated by Police.
The young self-employed carpenter-fisherman, and father of two stated that he kept four locks and a security chain on his New York Hotel apartment door because it was weak. He denied keeping a reinforcing rod and a grapple hook on the door to use as a weapon and said he used it sometimes as an anchor.
However, he was fined $1,000 and given two weeks to pay the fine after pleading guilty to possessing 7.13 grams of cannabis.
In making his judgment Mr. Hector said he believed the heroin was found in the hat in the room – but he said that under the Misuse of Drugs Act it must be proved that a person had exclusive possession, conscious control and knowledge of the illicit material. He said the prosecution had failed to satisfy him that the accused was in possession of the heroin. He said he could not be sure whether the heroin found in Trott’s New York Hotel apartment was his or his wife’s, KT.
He said in finding Trott not guilty: “If I’ve made a mistake, you had better take advantage of it. We (magistrates’) are not infallible.
And Mr. Hector said that the Police, who broke down the door to Trott’s apartment with a battering ram, were entitled to do so.
“They (the Police) cannot be faulted in forcing open the door,” said Mr. Hector.
The judge made the comments during a case in which a man was planning to appeal against a 30-month jail sentence for possessing heroin.
After some hesitation the man, [……] Smith, 24, instructed his lawyer, Mr. Charles Vaucrosson, not to proceed with the appeal.
The judge had already indicated that he could see no grounds to challenge [Smith’s] sentence imposed by the Wor. Gerald Price on November 16 for possession of .709 grams of the drug.
Smith said he needed more time to consult his lawyer, adding that he had been in prison.
“You are going to stay in prison,” said the Chief Justice.
“This is a serious offence. It is not a petty offence. This is a case where they (the Police) found you in possession of heroin. Trading in it. You could have got 20 years in prison.
Told by Mr. Vaucrosson that Smith would abandon the appeal the judge said: “You are real wise. Maybe the time has come for me to give a directive to magistrates to tell them this type of case should be sent to this court.”
The courts had to do their best to keep drugs out of the community.
“It is here already, but we must do our best to contain it,” said the judge.
The Chief Justice said he would look into the matter to see if magistrates were empowered to pass such cases on to the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the Crown had argued that the prosecution had satisfied the burden of proof. Past legal cases were quoted to Mr. Justice Robinson to support the appeal.
The Puisne Judge said: “It is quite clear from the judgment that the learned magistrate was led into error, and erred in law, by submissions made to him to the effect that it was necessary to prove exclusive possession and certain control and knowledge on the part of the respondent before the presumption under Section 32(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act) arose.
The matter is not without difficulties, but the plain words of the Section do not justify such an interpretation of this Section, which seems to me to have been deliberately drawn in wide terms.”
However, on August 29th in magistrates court, Trott’s counsel contended:
The case was adjourned sine die until the Court of Appeal decided the matter.
The judges further said they thought that Supreme Court Judge Robinson had erred in directing the magistrate to convict.
“Consequently, he did not apply his mind to the question of proof by the defence on a balance of probabilities that the accused neither knew nor had reason to suspect that he had a controlled drug in his woolen hat, or at all. The case might have been remitted to the trial magistrate to deal with this aspect of the matter and come to a finding on the case as a whole or alternatively an order made for a retrial. We consider that a retrial was the fairer course to follow; and after setting aside the direction to convict, we have ordered a retrial before another magistrate.”
1981
On February 1st 1981 it was noted that illicit drugs marketing at a house on Parson’s Road, Devonshire which was frequented daily by Trott and others had expanded to such serious proportions that the matter had to be resolved as soon as possible. To this end, and in a concerted effort to gain video evidence in support of continuous intelligence then being collated from addicted street informants, intermittent surveillance on the Parson’s Road premises began on that date. Trott’s daily activities at the site while he was on bail pending his heroin supply retrial was particularly galling.
CLICK HERE to read about the Infamous “Drugs Supermarket” case in which Trott is conspicuous in his drug dealing antics that were filmed on video camera.
On March 2nd, 1981 at Trott’s retrial, presiding magistrate the Wor. K.C. Nadarajah refused to hear the case for personal reasons. He said that his daughter, Mrs. Priya DeSoysa, had at one time been Trott’s defence counsel.
The court heard evidence from Det. Sgt. Alex Arnfield concerning a drug raid he had conducted on December 21, 1979. When D/S Arnfield began to tell the court of cash boxes allegedly found in Trott’s apartment Mr. Ounapuu objected on the grounds that the evidence had not been put before the court at earlier hearings. He successfully applied for an adjournment [until the following day] in order for him to attempt to contact the former Crown Counsel Mr. Robin McMillan, who had first appeared for the prosecution in the case. Mr. Ounapuu said he was also trying to get in touch with a previous defence lawyer, Mrs. Priya DeSoysa who was off Island.
The case has had a long history since it first came to court following Trott’s arrest on December 21st 1979. It will be remembered that he was earlier acquitted of the charge by Senior Magistrate the Wor Richard Hector. That acquittal was successfully appealed by the Crown, [to the Bermuda Supreme Court] and Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Robinson ordered the case back to magistrates’ court – with a direction for conviction. Trott’s defence in turn lodged an appeal, and the [travelling Court of Appeal] sent the case back to Magistrates court for a retrial.
Detective Constable Billy Henry gave evidence about a drugs squad raid on Trott’s Victoria Street apartment. The court heard that officers broke down the door with a battering ram.
Dc Henry told how he conducted a search of a bedroom, where he found five bulky pay type envelopes. The office denied hitting Trott over the head with a truncheon, when questioned by Mr. Ooonapuu.
DC Heny told the court that he saw the officer who accompanied him, D/S Alex Arnfield, discover a package which contained tin foils. The prosecution alleges that 76 foil decks containing 20 percent heroin were found in the apartment.
The remainder of the first day’s hearing was taken up with legal submissions from Crown Counsel Mr. Andrejs Berzins and defence lawyer Mr. Toomas Ounapuu.
The trial ran for several more days in April before being further adjourned for judgment.
On May 1st, at 3.0 p.m. acting magistrate Mr. Riihiluoma delivered his judgment, convicting Trott and sentencing him to prison for two-and-a-half years.
But Trott was still able to elude jail.
At 3.30 p.m. a notice of appeal was filed by Vaucrosson’s Chambers without notification to the Crown. The Wor. K.C. Nadarajah, then Acting Senior Magistrate, released Trott on $2,500 bail with a surety in like amount.
At 4.0 p.m. Trott was seen by detectives on the streets of Hamilton. His bail had been granted in the absence of both his own lawyer and Mr. Berzins for the Crown. In granting the Notice of Appeal Mr. Nadarajah had apparently been acting on the contents of a letter requesting bail from the chambers of Charles Vaucrosson – an act that was later criticized by Chief Justice the Hon. James Astwood as being “somewhat irregular.”
On May 19th, the Crown applied before the Chief Justice in chambers that a substituted higher recognizance or security bail should be granted. The Chief Justice refused the application, but noted in criticizing Mr. Nadarajah that “the method of dealing with bail applications in Magistrates Court was somewhat irregular and proper procedures should be followed in future.”
Trott’s bail was extended pending his appeal hearing before the Bermuda Court of Appeal.
On August 6th 1981 Trott was again arrested for possession of heroin which was intended for supply. He was also charged with misusing heroin on the same day.
Trott’s lawyer Mr. Charles Vaucrosson argued that the prosecution had not proved that Trott legally possessed the brown woolen hat which was found to contain heroin when Police raided his Victoria Street, Hamilton apartment in December 1979. “No evidence was introduced at the trial to prove that the appellant was in possession of that hat at the time of the search,” Mr. Vaucrosson said.
“There were also opportunities, if not distinct possibilities, that someone else could have put the heroin in the hat that was hanging on the back of the door during the search. It is very clear from the evidence that the defendant had no opportunity whatever to do that.”
Mr. Vaucrosson also argued that the sentence was harsh for the first offence of possession of hard drugs.
The Attorney General Mr. Saul Froomkin replied that the magistrate had not misinterpreted the law concerning possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was proved as fact that Trott possessed the hat.
He asked the Chief Justice not to alter either the conviction or sentence saying that the accused was fortunate to get only 30 months.
Trott had his bail extended yet again pending the Chief Justice’s judgement later in the week. But on September 4th, after Mr. Vaucrosson had argued for a further adjournment of the appeal, Mr. Berzins for the Crown objected saying the case had gone on far too long.
The Chief Justice’s decision was a victory for both Police and Crown prosecutors who had been trying to put Trott behind bars as fervently as he had been trying to elude them. The legal tug-of-war had gone through two magistrates’ court trials, three Appeal Court hearings and several adjournments. During the preceding two years there had been several changes in members of the judiciary dealing with the case, including three magistrates, three Crown prosecutors and four defence lawyers.
Indeed, time had dragged on and former Crown Counsel Mr. Andrejs Berzins, who had successfully argued for Trott’s conviction during the second magistrates’ court trial in April of this year [1981], had completed his term of employment with the Bermuda Government leaving fellow Canadian Mr. Saul Froomkin, Q.C., Attorney General, to finish up the case.
Mr. Berzins had been prepared to argue the case for the Crown on September 4, the original date of the Supreme Court appeal, but Trott’s defence counsel at that time, Ms. Keren Lomas had argued for an adjournment over the objections of Mr. Berzins.
In delivering his judgment the Chief Justice said: “I see no merit in the appeal of conviction.”
Nor did he believe that the prison sentence was unduly harsh and excessive. Ordering Trott to prison, he said tersely: “Don’t waste any more time with this.”
Trott, a married father of two, had appeared to be a picture of middle-class respectability. Arriving five minutes late at the Appeal Court hearing, Trott explained to the Chief Justice that he had to take his child to school. Police sources, however, said that Trott was a drug pusher, who lived comfortably, but had no steady job.
On his trail for some time, Police had finally caught up with him on December 21st 1979, in his apartment at the New York Hotel on Victoria Street. Police had used a five-foot utility pole to break into the apartment and eventually found 76 foil decks containing 20 percent heroin in a woolen hat.
1982
Defence lawyer Mr. Michael Mello told Mrs. Wade that Police had arrested the wrong person. KT’s husband, who took the stand in his wife’s defence, refused to say whether he had concealed the drug in the book before going to prison, on the ground that his answer might incriminate him.
Earlier in the trial, Mrs. Wade heard that KT had visited her husband on December 13th [1981] at Casemates when he had asked her to bring two books – “Yoga and Health” and “Six Days to Perfect Spelling”. She had returned on December 20 with a brown paper bag containing the two books, some chocolate and some cigarettes.
At the prison reception desk, KT had turned over the bag for inspection. When prison officers opened the spelling book they found a silver foil wrapper containing a small deck of heroin.
On Christmas Eve, KT was questioned by narcotics officer D/S Alex Arnfield, but she refused to answer most of his questions.
Character witness, Seventh-day Adventist minister Pastor Colin Dunbar, testified that KT, a regular church-goer, was “definitely not” capable of the charges.
Summing up, Mr. Mello said that had his client intended to deliver the heroin to her husband she would have put it in her handbag or her underclothes as she knew she would not be subjected to a personal search.
Mrs. Wade said on the balance of probability KT. did not know the drug was in the book. But she said that KT’s husband’s evidence had been completely unsatisfactory and that she rejected it “in its entirety”.
1984
On February 16th, 1984, Robert Trott, 35, began serving a 15-year prison sentence for the possession of heroin. The married father of two children had served a 30-month term for a similar offence for which he was convicted in 1981. In a pale green interview room away from the overcrowded cells in Casemates Prison, Mr. Trott described life inside the maximum-security institution.
Sometimes they give us oatmeal, wheat or dry cereal and maybe two mornings a week we have eggs and sausages. We drink orange juice and have bread, butter and jam. And coffee and tea, but I don’t drink coffee, just juice. I don’t look forward to breakfast. Some guys do but I don’t. I don’t think a person should eat a lot if he is going to be in his cell all day and not working, just stuck in the room. After we have breakfast, they let us out to wash up and rinse our cups.
But I’m not working right now. I’m doing some studying on a computer. Two ladies come in three times a week to teach and another lady comes one time a week.
Times are changing. When I get out of here it’s going to be in another time so I have to be prepared. I have a family. I gotta to be able to do something to earn a living. Outside you gotta do certain things. You gotta have an education in order to get jobs. I think about getting on the outside and being with my family. I just think about getting out. I mean, I’m not supposed to be in here in the first place but this is how it is.
At 10 a.m. the cells open for recreation and we can go outside and play a game of volleyball or ping pong or cards. I stay in my room and read. I read a lot. I read novels, sometimes a lot of magazines to learn about world news. I read the New York Times and National Geographic which gives in-depth information on life elsewhere. Maybe if more Bermudians would read them they would appreciate their country more. I appreciate this country very much. It may be small but we have a lot of stuff going for it. But we need to step out now. Bermuda has been under a yoke for a long time. We need independence from Britain.
Lunch hour they have sandwiches, but they might have a meal. And a drink. The food is good. We don’t have no top-quality chefs but by any standards I think the food is very good. I usually skip lunch. Fruit is the answer to staying in shape. I eat grapefruits. I get them as a privilege. My wife brings them to me. We’re allowed four pieces of fruit each visit.
I see my family once a week. On Sundays. Visits work on a grade system. First grade you get one a month. Second grade is two a month. Third grade is four a month and from then on you get five a month. I’m a fourth grade. If you’re here for three months and keep your nose clean, then they move you up a grade. Six months and if you’re still keeping yourself straight you move up to third grade. And a year after that you move up to fourth grade as long as you don’t get yourself in trouble. You can lose your privileges. If you toe the line straight - you’ll be all right.
It’s hard being a father here. But it’s also hard on the mother. She’s got to be mother and daddy all at one time. She’s got to get up in the morning, get them ready for school and then get to work. If she can get a decent job. My wife is a housekeeper. It’s tough for her to get by.
In the afternoons we come out again and play volleyball or cricket. I like to swim. In summers if it’s nice out, we get to have a swim once a week. At 3.30 we come back to our cells and have supper at 4 p.m.
We stay in our cells until 6 and then have a shower. At 7, I have classes to go to – English or Math’s or computer. After the class, at 8.30, we get out for water. We have a water bottle we fill up to last the night.
If you’re in a high grade you can have a TV. My favourite show is the news. I watch Dan Rather. It’s interesting. It lets you know what’s going on. See, news is essential for me. If you get into news you’re seeing what’s happening in the rest of the world. You’re actually seeing it. Like, you’re there.
Lights are out at 10 p.m. until 5.30 a.m. I don’t sleep the whole time. Sometimes it’s so hot I can’t sleep. I have plenty of time to think. I think about my family. I think about the anguish, the feelings they’re going through because their father isn’t there when they need him.
I regret what I did, about knowing what drugs are, what they do. I would like to get out early to help my children grasp a little more about life. Things in here are how you make them. If you want it hard, things can be made hard for you. If you want to achieve something and you go through the right procedures you can achieve it.
Faith keeps me going. I believe in the Father and I also believe he’ll pull me through this here. I know he’ll pull me through this here. I have my family behind me. They worry about me.
A day in prison is long. It’s hard. It’s like being a seaman. You just can’t move where you want to move. It hurts, man. It ain’t my choice. It hurts being here.
I just don’t want to be here for the rest of my life. When I get out my children will be having children. If I had to live my life over, I wouldn’t do this again.’
............................................................
