Lucas O’Hara

This decision concerns the sentencing of two co-accused, Jason Nahmabin and James Armstrong, who pleaded guilty to being accessories after the fact to murder.

Andrew Chute was murdered in April 2022.

Nahmabin, a drug dealer, was instrumental in bringing the victim to the scene and actively assisted the killers post-murder by retrieving evidence and instructing the co-accused to remain silent and destroy evidence.

Armstrong, a first-time offender with addiction issues, drove the killers from the scene and initially lied to police before cooperating.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and extensively considered Gladue factors for Nahmabin.

Armstrong received a 22-month conditional sentence with house arrest and probation, while Nahmabin received four years of incarceration.

The accused, a police officer, arrested a woman who was severely intoxicated by methamphetamine.

While she was in his custody, her condition deteriorated significantly, but he failed to seek medical assistance.

He subsequently transferred her to the custody of other officers and deliberately provided them with false and incomplete information about her medical condition, delaying medical intervention.

The detainee later died of methamphetamine toxicity.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death, holding that his actions constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police officer.

The applicant, a police officer, sought an anonymity order and a publication ban for an upcoming mandatory inquest into a death following his use of force, citing alleged threats to his safety on social media.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the paramountcy of the "open court" principle and the mandatory nature of section 32 of the Coroner's Act, which stipulates that inquests shall be open to the public with only two specific exceptions not applicable to this case.

The court found no evidence of specific threats constituting a real and substantial risk to justify overriding the statutory requirement for a public inquest.