COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent)
v. ABRAR AHMED-SAIDI (Appellant)
BEFORE: FINLAYSON, LABROSSE and LASKIN JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Lorne Sabsay, for the appellant Karen Shai, for the respondent
HEARD: January 25, 2001
RELEASED ORALLY: January 25, 2001
On appeal from his conviction by Justice Sandra Chapnik, sitting with a jury, on August 27, 1998 and from the sentence imposed on September 8, 1998
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant was convicted by a court composed of a judge and jury of attempted murder, aggravated assault and discharging a firearm with intent to wound. He was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years and six months. He appeals both the conviction and the sentence.
2It was alleged that the appellant owed money to the victim and that they agreed to meet in order for the appellant to repay part of the debt. At that meeting the victim was shot and seriously injured.
3The victim knew the appellant. He had met him the year before and had seen him afterwards on a number of occasions. The victim identified the appellant in a photo line-up. Two maintenance workers gave evidence that was capable of supporting part of the victim’s story.
4The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in her instruction with respect to the identification evidence.
5The trial judge gave general instructions regarding the manner in which the jury should approach the issue of identification. She reviewed this evidence, including the evidence that the victim knew the appellant prior to the shooting, that they had arranged to meet, the police testimony regarding the photographic line-up, and the evidence of the maintenance workers. The instructions dealt with both the credibility and the reliability of this evidence. We also note that there was no objection made by the defence. In our view, the jury was properly instructed on this issue.
6It is also submitted that the trial judge erred in the manner in which she reviewed the theory of the defence.
7This was a short trial with simple and straightforward issues. In our view, the review of the theory of the defence was adequate and we see no error.
8We note that the defence did not call evidence.
9In our view, there is no proper basis upon which to question the conviction.
10With respect to sentence, the offence was a premeditated, senseless and unprovoked act of violence committed with the use of a firearm and which caused life-threatening injuries. The appellant has an extensive criminal record which reveals an escalation in criminal activity.
11We see no error in principle and the sentence is within the range for similar offences by similar offenders.
12The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
(signed) “G. D. Finlayson J.A.”
(signed) “J. M. Labrosse J.A.”
(signed) “John Laskin J.A.”