Her Majesty the Queen v. Muse Abdirahim
COURT FILE NO.: CR 0418\17
DATE: 20190530
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
MUSE ABDIRAHIM
COUNSEL:
Valerie Culp, for the Crown
Christopher Assie, for the Accused
HEARD: March 18-20, 2019
BEFORE: P.J. Monahan J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] Muse Abdirahim was charged with 10 offenses arising out of three armed robberies committed in August and September 2010. The first robbery occurred at a Stay Inn Hotel and Suites in Toronto on August 13, 2010; the second occurred at a Mac’s Milk in Toronto on August 22, 2010; and the third occurred at a cellular wireless store in Toronto on September 20, 2010 (the “Cellular Wireless Robbery”).
[2] There were no injuries in either of the first two robberies. However, in the course of the Cellular Wireless Robbery, the owner of the wireless store, Najeeb Tariq, was shot by Mr. Abdirahim. Fortunately, Mr. Tariq recovered from his injuries.
[3] At the outset of trial, Mr. Abdirahim pleaded guilty to the charges in relation to the Stay Inn Hotel robbery, as well as to a number of the charges in relation to the Cellular Wireless Robbery. The Crown also applied to have the evidence from the Stay Inn and Cellular Wireless Robbery admitted in relation to the charges arising from the Mac’s Milk robbery. This application was dismissed on the basis that the evidence did not meet the test for a high degree of similarity between the acts in question and, thus, the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect. The Crown then withdrew the charges in relation to the Mac’s Milk robbery.
[4] In the result, there were only two charges remaining at issue in relation to Mr. Abdirahim, both arising out of the Cellular Wireless Robbery. These were counts 5 and 6 in the relevant indictment, as follows:
a. that he had used a restricted or prohibited firearm, namely, a handgun, to attempt to murder Najeeb Tariq, contrary to s. 239(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; and
b. that he had discharged a restricted or prohibited firearm, namely, a handgun, with intent to wound Najeeb Tariq, contrary to s. 244(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.
[5] I note that Mr. Abdirahim has pleaded guilty to four other charges arising from the Cellular Wireless Robbery, including using a restricted or prohibited firearm to commit the robbery, having his face disguised with intent to commit the robbery, and possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm without the necessary authorization or registration certificate.
[6] In an effort to streamline the proceedings, counsel for both parties provided an agreed statement of facts with respect to the Cellular Wireless Robbery. This included the following relevant admissions, pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code:
a. that the surveillance video of the robbery was fair and accurate;
b. that the photographs taken by police after the robbery were fair and accurate;
c. that Mr. Abdirahim is the individual with the handgun in the surveillance video of the robbery;
d. that the handgun brandished by Mr. Abdirahim is a restricted or prohibited firearm pursuant to the Criminal Code;
e. that there was a continuity of all items seized by police during the investigation of the robbery; and
f. Mr. Tariq’s medical records were admitted for the truth of their contents.
[7] The result of these guilty pleas and admissions was that the principal issue at trial was whether Mr. Abdirahim had the necessary intent required for either of the two remaining charges before the court. The Crown argued that Mr. Abdirahim had discharged a firearm intending either to kill or to wound Mr. Tariq, while Mr. Abdirahim argued that the firearm had discharged accidentally and that the Crown had failed to prove that he had the intent required for either offence.
[8] For the reasons described below, I find Mr. Abdirahim not guilty of the charge of using a restricted or prohibited handgun to attempt to murder Mr. Tariq, but guilty of the charge of using a restricted or prohibited firearm to attempt to wound him.
The Evidence
a. The Crown’s Case
[9] The Crown relied on a surveillance video taken of the Cellular Wireless Robbery. There was no audio, and the images on the video were somewhat grainy, but there were a number of video clips showing different angles of the store. As such it was possible to clearly observe the unfolding of events during the robbery.
[10] The video shows Mr. Abdirahim entering the wireless store on the evening of September 20, 2010. He was wearing a hoodie pulled up over his head and his face was covered by a mask. He was carrying a handgun in his right hand. Seconds after Mr. Abdirahim enters the store, a second masked perpetrator enters as well. The second individual is carrying a duffel bag but does not appear to be armed.
[11] Mr. Tariq can be seen standing behind a glass counter serving a customer. Mr. Abdirahim approaches and leaps over the glass countertop, drop-kicking Mr. Tariq in the chest. The force of the kick causes Mr. Tariq to fall backwards into a corner of the store. Mr. Abdirahim himself momentarily falls back as a result of the drop-kick, breaking through the glass countertop.
[12] Mr. Abdirahim gets up from the broken countertop and begins looking behind and under the counter for cash. After a few seconds he approaches Mr. Tariq, who by this time has regained his feet. Mr. Abdirahim searches through Mr. Tariq’s pockets and points the gun at his head. After a few more seconds, Mr. Abdirahim takes two steps back, and points the handgun at Mr. Tariq. The gun discharges. Mr. Tariq appears to have been shot and falls backward. Mr. Abdirahim also staggers slightly backwards.
[13] Mr. Tariq can then be observed pointing to a section below the counter in an apparent attempt to direct Mr. Abdirahim to the location where cash is stored. Mr. Abdirahim and his associate empty the cash register and also search the location pointed out by Mr. Tariq. They then exit the store. The entire robbery was completed in approximately 50 seconds.
[14] This video evidence was supported by the viva voce evidence of Mr. Tariq. He testified that on the evening in question he was serving a customer when he observed a man in a hoodie (acknowledged to be Mr. Abdirahim) entering the store and coming toward him. Mr. Tariq testified that Mr. Abdirahim leaped over the counter and kicked him in the chest. The force of the kick caused Mr. Tariq to fall back into the corner of the store.
[15] Mr. Tariq remembers Mr. Abdirahim going through his pockets looking for money. Mr. Abdirahim put his handgun onto Mr. Tariq’s temple and said “where is the rest of the money?” Mr. Tariq attempted to explain that the money was in a bottom left drawer under the counter. Mr. Abdirahim then stepped back, pointed the handgun and shot him.
[16] Mr. Tariq testified that he initially did not realize he had been shot or that he was bleeding. He heard a loud bang and felt something coming toward his face. He thought the gun was a toy or perhaps a gun used to shoot fireworks. He felt sand or particles coming into his eyes and he was unable to see for a couple of seconds. He thought perhaps someone had thrown something at him.
[17] Mr. Tariq subsequently opened the cash register, and attempted to explain to Mr. Abdirahim that there was more money stored in a drawer under one of the counters. Mr. Abdirahim looked for the money but was unable to locate it, and left with his associate.
[18] Mr. Tariq called 911. The police officer who arrived on the scene explained to him that he had been shot. He was taken to hospital, treated for his wounds and released the next morning. His medical records confirmed that he had in fact been shot in the neck area. The bullet had exited through his back shoulder without damaging any internal organs. In addition to suffering a gunshot wound, there was tattooing or embedding of particles in his neck area where the bullet had entered.
[19] The bullet discharged from Mr. Abdirahim’s handgun in the course of the robbery was recovered by police and was subsequently matched to a handgun seized in 2011. Ms. Judy Chin, a firearms expert from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, testified with respect to the nature and characteristics of this handgun. Ms. Chin’s CV was filed as an exhibit, and her expertise and qualifications were conceded by the defence.
[20] Ms. Chin testified that the handgun was seized on April 9, 2011 and she examined it between April and August 2011, which was the date of her report on her findings.
[21] She identified the handgun as a 38-calibre snub-nosed revolver manufactured in Brazil. It had five chambers. The short barrel meant that the revolver tended not to burn all the gunpowder in a bullet cartridge when fired. When bullets leave the barrel, one might observe a muzzle flash, and dust or unburned particles following the bullet. These particles would extend out about 36 inches from the muzzle of the gun in a conical pattern, and could be embedded in the skin of the victim. When the handgun is fired, it makes a loud sound, such that it would hurt your ears unless you were wearing ear protection. The firing of the gun would also cause a fair bit of recoil, causing the shooter’s arm to move.
[22] Although Ms. Chin was unable to say what the condition of the handgun was in September 2010, she testified that the handgun today fires as a “double action” revolver. In her initial testimony, Ms. Chin stated that when you pull the hammer back and release it, the hammer will automatically slide back into place and cause the gun to discharge. Ms. Chin estimated, consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications, that it would require over three pounds of force to pull the trigger or pull back the hammer.
[23] In the course of her testimony, Ms. Chin attempted to demonstrate the “double action” firing action of the handgun. Through this demonstration she observed that even if you pull back and release the hammer, the firing pin on the hammer will not contact the bullet in the chamber unless you also pull or hold the trigger back with your finger. In her opinion, therefore, if you pull back and release the hammer, the gun will only fire if you also pull or hold the trigger back with your finger.
b. The Defence Case
[24] Mr. Abdirahim testified on his own behalf. He was born in Somalia and came to Canada with his grandmother at the age of eight as a refugee. He lived initially with his uncle (his mother’s brother) in the Finch and Sentinel Road area of North York. Three years later he was joined by his mother and three siblings. Apart from one year when he attended high school in the United States, he has lived in Canada and been raised by his mother.
[25] After graduating from high school, he enrolled at York University. He came into conflict with his mother over his behaviour, which included staying out late, smoking and drinking, and sometimes not coming home for a few days at a time.
[26] In the summer of 2010 Mr. Abdirahim was 21 years old. He acknowledged that he and various friends had become engaged in criminal activity, involving drugs and robberies. He further acknowledged having robbed the Stay Inn Hotel in August 2010 along with a friend who had the street name of “Rico”. He had met Rico through a mutual friend from high school. Mr. Abdirahim was unsure of Rico’s age but thought that Rico might be a bit younger than he was.
[27] Immediately prior to the Stay Inn robbery, Rico had given him the gun that he was to use. Rico waited outside in the car while Mr. Abdirahim entered and robbed the hotel. Mr. Abdirahim testified that he did not know if the gun was loaded. He returned the gun to Rico after the robbery.
[28] Mr. Abdirahim acknowledged committing the Cellular Wireless Robbery with Rico on September 20, 2010. He and Rico planned the robbery in advance including where they would park their getaway car.
[29] On the evening in question they waited outside for a few minutes for the right time to go in to the wireless store. While they were waiting in the car outside, Rico gave him the handgun. It was the same gun that had been used in the Stay Inn robbery the month before.
[30] Mr. Abdirahim testified that once again he did not know if the gun was loaded. He did not examine the gun to see if it had any bullets in any of the chambers, nor did he inquire of Rico as to whether the gun was loaded. His plan was not to hurt or shoot anyone but merely to use the handgun to scare the employees in the store. Mr. Abdirahim testified that he had never fired a gun prior to this particular evening.
[31] Mr. Abdirahim testified that he does not remember a lot of details about the robbery. He indicated that his adrenaline was pumping and that everything was happening so fast. He was unaware of the fact that the gun had discharged in the course of the robbery or that Mr. Tariq had been shot. He only learned later when watching television that an employee of the wireless store had been shot. Mr. Abdirahim testified that he did not mean to fire the gun or to shoot Mr. Tariq. He feels ashamed and horrible for the suffering he has caused.
[32] On cross-examination, Mr. Abdirahim testified that he did not ask Rico whether the gun was loaded because it was not his plan to use the gun for any purpose other than to scare the employees and customers into compliance. He stated that it never crossed his mind to check whether the gun was loaded.
[33] Mr. Abdirahim acknowledged drop-kicking Mr. Tariq and subsequently holding the gun against his head. He was demanding that Mr. Tariq tell him where the store’s money was kept. Mr. Abdirahim distinctly remembers cocking the hammer on the gun back and telling Mr. Tariq to do as he was being told. Mr. Abdirahim thought the hammer on the gun would stay back in place when cocked and not fire. He does not remember whether his finger was on the trigger when he pulled the hammer back, nor does he remember the gun discharging.
[34] Mr. Abdirahim testified that if he had wanted to scare Mr. Tariq he would not have aimed for his head. He acknowledged that shooting someone near the head or above the waist can kill them. He does not remember seeing Mr. Tariq falling back after the gun went off. If he had known Mr. Tariq had been shot he would have panicked and fled immediately. He does not remember hearing a loud bang or feeling any recoil from the gun discharging.
Applicable Legal Principles
a. The Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
[35] The presumption of innocence, and along with it the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, are important and necessary safeguards to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of an offence and wrongfully deprived of his or her liberty.
[36] Thus, Mr. Abdirahim is presumed innocent of the charges brought against him and this presumption remains with him unless and until the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a heavy burden that remains on the Crown and never shifts.
[37] I remind myself of the meaning of the phrase proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense, one that arises logically from the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Abdirahim is probably or likely guilty. In that circumstance I am required to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Abdirahim and acquit him because the Crown would have failed to satisfy me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[38] I also recognize that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof to an absolute certainty. But the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to probable guilt. I recognize that I must consider all of the evidence and be sure that Mr. Abdirahim committed the offence(s) with which he is charged before I can be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
b. Assessing Credibility
[39] Mr. Abdirahim testified in his own defence and to reach a verdict in this case I must assess his credibility. This task does not simply involve choosing which version of events I prefer. The decisive question is whether, considering the evidence as a whole, the Crown has proven Mr. Abdirahim’s guilt on the specific charges alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
[40] The correct approach in cases such as this was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.),[^1] where the Court directed, first, that if I believe the evidence of Mr. Abdirahim that he did not commit the offence with which he is charged, I must find him not guilty. Second, even if I do not believe the testimony of Mr. Abdirahim, if his testimony leaves me with a reasonable doubt of his guilt regarding the offence charged, I must find him not guilty. Third, even if Mr. Abdirahim’s testimony does not leave me with any reasonable doubt as to his guilt, I must still consider whether the evidence I do accept satisfies me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
c. Required Elements of Attempt to Commit Murder
[41] Mr. Abdirahim is charged with attempted murder using a restricted or prohibited firearm. It is acknowledged that Mr. Abdirahim in fact used such a firearm and shot Mr. Tariq in the course of the Cellular Wireless Robbery. However, the issue is whether he had the required mental element for this offence, which is a specific intent to kill someone.
[42] In order to find Mr. Abdirahim guilty of attempted murder, the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had subjective foresight of the fact that the death of Mr. Tariq was likely to ensue from his actions, but he took those actions regardless.[^2] In short, did Mr. Abdirahim fire a handgun at Mr. Tariq actually intending to kill him?
d. Required Elements of Discharging Firearm with Intent to Wound
[43] Mr. Abdirahim has also been charged with discharging a firearm at Mr. Tariq with intent to wound him. It is acknowledged that Mr. Abdirahim actually discharged a firearm and wounded Mr. Tariq. However, as with the charge of attempted murder, the issue in relation to this charge is whether Mr. Abdirahim had the required mental element necessary to prove he committed this offence.
[44] The mental element in discharging a firearm with intent requires the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an actual intention to wound. It is not sufficient to have an intention to threaten, scare or frighten someone, nor is it sufficient to objectively foresee that there is a risk of harm.[^3] The Crown must prove that Mr. Abdirahim fired his handgun at Mr. Tariq actually intending to wound him.
e. Crown’s Burden in cases of circumstantial evidence
[45] As will be apparent, the Crown’s case in relation to Mr. Abdirahim’s intent when he fired the gun is primarily circumstantial. I remind myself that in such a case the Crown must prove that the presence of the necessary intent is the only rational conclusion to draw from the whole of the evidence.
Analysis
[46] I consider first the question of whether Mr. Abdirahim accidentally or unintentionally discharged the firearm in the course of the Cellular Wireless Robbery, or whether he did so intentionally.
[47] As described above, Mr. Abdirahim maintained that he had discharged the firearm accidentally. However I find that there are a number of serious concerns regarding the believability of his version of events.
[48] First, he testified that he did not know whether the gun he received from Rico prior to the robbery was loaded or not. This claim seems quite implausible. Mr. Abdirahim had used the same gun in a robbery the previous month. That robbery, like the Cellular Wireless Robbery, had been planned in advance. It defies logic and common sense to imagine that Mr. Abdirahum and Rico would have developed and carried out a plan to commit two robberies without ever discussing whether the gun to be used in the robberies would be loaded or not. The suggestion by Mr. Abdirahim that the question of whether the gun was loaded or not “never crossed his mind” is simply not believable.
[49] In any event the chambers in the revolver are partially visible even when the cylinder is locked in place. Thus one would be able to tell whether the gun was loaded simply by looking at it. This reinforces the lack of believability associated with Mr. Abdirahim’s claim that he did not know whether the gun was loaded.
[50] Mr. Abdirahim also maintained that he did not intend to hurt anyone during the robbery. He claimed that he had the gun in his hand merely in order to scare employees and customers. But this claim is inconsistent with his actual behaviour upon entering the store. Rather than simply demanding money, Mr. Abdirahim immediately leaped across the counter and drop-kicked Mr. Tariq in the chest. The force of the kick was sufficient to cause Mr. Tariq to fall-back into a corner of the store, which could have injured him, and to cause Mr. Abdirahim to fall back and through a glass countertop.
[51] I also have concerns regarding Mr. Abdirahim’s account of how the handgun was discharged. Mr. Abdirahim testified that he cocked the hammer of the gun back in order to scare Mr. Tariq, when the gun discharged accidentally. But this account is inconsistent with the unfolding of events as shown on the surveillance video.
[52] Immediately prior to the gun being fired, Mr. Abdirahim was holding the gun against Mr. Tariq’s head. Had he wanted merely to scare Mr. Tariq by cocking the hammer, the easiest way to accomplish that would have been to simply pull it back with his thumb while continuing to hold the gun to Mr. Tariq’s temple. Instead, Mr. Abdirahim takes two steps back and the gun is immediately discharged. There was no pause between Mr. Tariq stepping back and the discharge of the handgun. In other words, the video is inconsistent with the suggestion that Mr. Abdirahim cocked the hammer back merely to warn or threaten Mr. Tariq, so as to induce him to disclose the location of the money.
[53] Mr. Abdirahim’s further claim that he was unaware that the gun had discharged is not believable. He testified that he specifically remembered pulling the hammer on the gun back, thinking that it would stay back and not cause the gun to discharge. If so, he must also have realized that the hammer on the gun did not stay back (as he apparently intended) but, instead, slide back into place. I also accept Ms. Chin’s evidence that merely pulling back and releasing the hammer would not cause the handgun to discharge and that it was also necessary to pull or hold back the trigger. It necessarily follows that, in addition to pulling the hammer back and releasing it, Mr. Abdirahim must have held or pulled the trigger.
[54] Also significant is the fact that the video shows that at the moment when the gun discharged, Mr. Abdirahim staggered backwards slightly. This is consistent with Ms. Chin’s evidence that firing the revolver would cause a noticeable recoil. Ms. Chin also testified that discharging this gun in an enclosed space would have caused a loud bang that would have been sufficient to damage one’s ears. Mr. Abdirahim must have heard that noise and known that the gun had discharged.
[55] I also did not find Mr. Abdirahim’s specific recollection of having pulled the hammer on the revolver back to be credible. Mr. Abdirahim initially testified that he did not remember a lot of details about the robbery. His adrenalin had been pumping and everything had happened so fast. The robbery had occurred over eight and a half years ago and his memory of the events in question had faded. How, then, was he able to specifically remember this particular detail having to do with pulling the hammer on the revolver back? I infer that, having heard Ms. Chin’s evidence to the effect that the revolver was “double action” and would fire automatically when the hammer was pulled back and released, Mr. Abdirahim was tailoring his evidence in an attempt to render it consistent with that of Ms. Chin.
[56] I do accept Mr. Abdirahim’s claim that he was not aware that Mr. Tariq had actually been shot, and that he did not discover that fact until he was later watching a news account of the robbery. In fact Mr. Tariq himself was initially unaware that he had been shot until after the police arrived. But the fact that Mr. Abdirahim did not realize he had actually shot Mr. Tariq does not negate or contradict the fact that he must have known that he had actually discharged the gun.
[57] These concerns are so substantial as to cause me to reject Mr. Abdirahim’s evidence. I find that Mr. Abdirahim was lying when he claimed that he discharged the handgun accidentally.
[58] I must next consider whether, even having rejected his evidence, I am left with reasonable doubt with respect to his guilt on either or both of the offenses with which he is charged. This involves the further, related determination of whether, on the basis of evidence which I do accept, the Crown has proven that Mr. Abdirahim had the specific intent necessary to establish that he committed either of the offences in question.
[59] The important issue to decide is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Abdirahim fired a handgun at Mr. Tariq intending either to kill or wound him.
[60] It is admitted that the surveillance video is an accurate depiction of the robbery. I also accept the evidence of Ms. Chin with respect to the nature of the handgun, including the manner in which it can be discharged, as well as that of Mr. Tariq in relation to the events that occurred during the robbery.
[61] What this evidence establishes is that Mr. Abdirahim held a loaded handgun to the head of Mr. Tariq. He then took two steps backwards, pointed the gun at Mr. Tariq’s head or upper body and discharged it, wounding him in the neck. Firing the handgun required significant effort on the part of Mr. Abdirahim and I find that it did not occur by accident. He either pulled the hammer back and released it, or simply pulled the trigger. Either way I find that he intentionally fired the handgun at Mr. Tariq.
[62] The remaining issue to consider is whether, in so doing, he had the intention of killing or wounding Mr. Tariq.
[63] Considering first the charge of attempted murder, Mr. Abdirahim himself testified that firing a gun at someone’s head or upper body from point-blank range would suggest an intention to kill that person. In this sense, Mr. Abdirahim’s own evidence tended to support the Crown’s claim that he fired a gun at Mr. Tariq with the requisite intention to kill.
[64] Nevertheless I note that when Mr. Abdirahim shot Mr. Tariq, he had not yet discovered the location in the store where money was being stored. Thus killing Mr. Tariq at that point would have prevented Mr. Abdirahim from successfully completing the robbery, since only Mr. Tariq seemed to know the location where the money was stored. This leads me to conclude that, even though I reject Mr. Abdirahim’s evidence, I am still left with reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown has proven that he had the necessary subjective intention of killing Mr. Tariq.
[65] On this basis, I find that he is entitled to an acquittal on the charge of attempted murder.
[66] Turning to the charge of intent to wound, the evidence clearly shows that Mr. Abdirahim pointed and fired a loaded handgun at Mr. Tariq’s head or upper body while standing no more than three feet away. I find that there is no possibility that Mr. Abdirahim was firing the gun merely in order to scare Mr. Tariq. Had Mr. Abdirahim merely been trying to scare Mr. Tariq, he would have aimed the gun in another direction rather than directly at him. Nor did Mr. Abdirahim claim that he fired the gun at Mr. Tariq merely in order to scare him. In fact, as Mr. Abdirahim acknowledged, assuming he discharged the gun deliberately rather than accidentally, this would support an inference that he intended to kill Mr. Tariq.
[67] Although, for reasons described above, I am left with reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Abdirahim actually intended to kill Mr. Tariq, the only remaining rational conclusion to draw from the circumstances of this shooting is that Mr. Abdirahim intended at the very least to wound him.
[68] Therefore I am satisfied, on the basis of all of the evidence I do accept, that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Abdirahim discharged a handgun at Mr. Tariq intending to wound him. I find him guilty of this offense.
Disposition
[69] I find the accused, Muse Abdirahim, not guilty on count 5, and guilty on count 6.
P. J. Monahan J.
Released: May 30, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: CR 0418\17
DATE: 20190530
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
MUSE ABDIRAHIM
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
P. J. Monahan J.
Released: May 30, 2019
[^1]: 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 ("W.D."). [^2]: R. v. Logan, 1990 84 (SCC), [1990] 2 S. C. R. 731. [^3]: R. v. Foti, (2002), 2002 MBCA 122, 169 C. C. C. (3rd) 57 (Man. C. A.) at paragraph 24.