In a terrorism prosecution alleging attempted participation in and counselling participation in the activities of Al‑Shabaab, the Crown sought to call an expert on Somalia and the organization’s history, structure, ideology, and recruitment practices.
Following a voir dire, the court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence from Mohan and the two‑step analysis in Abbey.
The court found the proposed testimony concerned subject matter beyond the knowledge of a typical Canadian jury and was logically relevant to issues of knowledge, intent, and interpretation of internet activity and recorded conversations.
The expert was held to be properly qualified and not shown to be biased, and the probative value of the contextual evidence outweighed any potential prejudice.
The court therefore permitted the expert evidence, with caution against using “consistent with” language suggesting ultimate issue conclusions.
