Compilation of Reported Judgments in Terrorism Criminal Trials

NSL, Ch. 7

Since the publication of National Security Law, there have been a number of criminal cases involving the terrorist offences in the Criminal Code.  I thought it might be useful to maintain a compilation of those written judgments that are publicly available:

 
















































Case Name



Jurisdiction



Judgments



R.
v. Thambithurai
(2010) 



B.C.



The accused pled guilty to one count under
s.83.03(b) (providing services knowing that they will benefit a terrorist
group).  He was sentenced
to 6 months imprisonment.



R.
v. Namouh
(2010)



Qc



This case involves a transnational
bombing plot.  The accused was
charged under s.465(1)(c) in association with s.431.2(2) (conspiracy in
relation to a terrorist bombing), s.83.18 (participation in the activities of
a terrorist group), s.83.19 (facilitation of terrorist activity) and s.83.2
in connection with s.346 (extortion in association with a terrorist
group).  The court had occasion
to define elements of these offences
and it also rejected
a constitutional challenge
to the definition of terrorist activity.  The accused was ultimately
found guilty and sentenced
to life imprisonment.



R.
v. Amara
(2010)


 


 



On (“Toronto 18” case)



This is one of the “Toronto 18”
cases.  The accused pled
guilty to charges
under s.83.18 (participating in the activity of a
terrorist group) and under s.83(1)(a) and 83.2 (acting in furtherance of an
intent to cause an explosion of an explosive substance for the benefit or in
association with a terrorist group). 
He was sentenced to life imprisonment.


 


This case also involved a publication
ban
.  Note that
the constitutionality of publications bans in the Toronto 18 bail proceedings
was upheld by the Supreme Court in Toronto Star
Newspapers v. Canada
.



R.
v. Gaya
(2010)


 



On (“Toronto 18” case)



This is one of the “Toronto 18”
cases.  The accused pled guilty
to charges under s.83.18 (participating in the activity of a terrorist group)
and under s.83(1)(a) and 83.2 (acting in furtherance of an intent to cause an
explosion of an explosive substance for the benefit or in association with a
terrorist group).  The accused
was sentenced to 12 years.


 


This case includes a detailed written judgment
concerning bail
.



R.
v. Khalid
(2009)


 


 



On (“Toronto 18” case)



This is one of the “Toronto 18”
cases.  The accused pled
guilty to charges
under s.83(1)(a) and 83.2 (acting in furtherance of an
intent to cause an explosion of an explosive substance for the benefit or in
association with a terrorist group). 
The accused was sentenced
to 14 years imprisonment.



R.
v. Khawaja
(2009)



On



This case involved a bombing conspiracy in the UK, the UK portion of which has come to be known as the Operation Crevice trial.  In Canada, the accused was charged with counts under
s.83(1)(a) and 83.2 (acting in furtherance of an intent to cause an explosion
of an explosive substance for the benefit or in association with a terrorist
group), s.83.18(1) and 83.21(1) (enhancing the ability of a terrorist group
to facilitate or carry out terrorist activity); s.83.03(a) (eliciting funds
for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out terrorist activity); s.83.18
(participating in the activities of a terrorist group); and, s.83.19
(facilitating terrorist activity). 
The accused challenged
the constitutionality
of the definition of terrorist activity, and was
successful in having the so-called “motive” aspect of that definition struck
out (a holding that has since not been followed by other trial courts). He
was found
guilty
and sentenced
to 10.5 years imprisonment.



R.
v. Y. (N.)
(2008)


 


 



On (“Toronto 18” case)



This is one of the “Toronto 18”
cases.  The accused (a young offender) was found
guilty
to charges under s.83.18 (participating in the activity of a
terrorist group).  He was
sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.


 


This cases includes a number of
interlocutory judgments: an intial publication
ban
decision, and then reconsideration;
an unsuccessful constitutional
challenge
to the abased requirements for wiretaps in terrorism offence
investigations; media
access to the exhibits
in the case; a challenge
to whether the accused had been properly cautioned
by police under the Charter; a constitutional
challenge
on vagueness grounds to the offence of participation in a
terrorist group an the definition of “terrorist activity” (and in particular,
to the armed conflict exception to the latter); and, a first
and then second
ruling on hearsay evidence.



R.
v. Lapoleon
(2007)



B.C.



The accused was charged, among other
things, under s.83.231(2) (a hoax regarding terrorist activity).  He was found
guilty
and sentenced
to two years probation. 


 

My thanks to my research assistant Aliki Yorgiadis for pulling much of this information together.