Court File and Parties

Court: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Date: 20210614 Docket: C63739

Before: Hoy, Benotto and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent and Libin Jama, Appellant

Counsel: Libin Jama, in person Ingrid Grant, as duty counsel Hannah Freeman, for the respondent

Heard: June 9, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from: the sentence imposed on April 20, 2017 by Justice Gary Trotter of the Superior Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Ms. Jama appeals the parole ineligibility portion of the life sentence that she received on her conviction for second degree murder. The sentencing judge set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years.

[2] The appellant was one of three persons who was found guilty of murdering the victim as the result of a dispute. The victim was beaten, kicked and stabbed. The victim was 57 years old. His assailants, including the appellant, were all in their twenties.

[3] Many of the appellant’s submissions relate to the finding of guilt. We note that her appeal of the murder conviction was earlier dismissed by this court.

[4] The appellant also refers to the fact that five jurors recommended that parole ineligibility be set at 10 years, whereas four others recommended longer periods. The recommendations of the jurors are just that, recommendations. They are not binding on the sentencing judge. The sentencing judge considered the jurors’ recommendations but had to make his own determination of the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

[5] The sentencing judge considered all of the factors enumerated in s. 754.4 of the Criminal Code and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. He concluded that the violent nature of the attack, and the age differential between the assailants and the victim, warranted an increase in the parole ineligibility period.

[6] The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in principle in the sentencing judge’s decision. There is no error of law, nor failure to consider a relevant factor, nor erroneous consideration of the aggravating or mitigating factors. Consequently, there is no basis for this court to interfere with the sentence imposed: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, 391 C.C.C. (3d) 309, at para. 26.

[7] Leave to appeal sentence is granted but, while we commend the steps that the appellant has taken since her incarceration to improve her life, the appeal must be dismissed.

“Alexandra Hoy J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”