ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
IDRES ISMAIL
Accused
Malcolm Savage and Anthony J. Does, for the Crown
Joseph Addelman and Samantha Robinson, for the Accused
HEARD: June 8-11, 14-18 and 21, 2021
reasons for decision
phillips j.
[1] Idres Ismail is charged with murdering Mouhamed Serhan on May 27th, 2019.
[2] That night, Mr. Serhan was standing with two friends on the edge of a parking lot in a housing project on Heatherington Road. Two young black men approached. One or both said “what's up...what’s up” before one of them immediately produced a handgun and killed Mr. Serhan with two shots to the torso fired from point-blank range.
[3] One of Mr. Serhan’s friends lied to this court about even being there that night. This leaves the other, Mr. Antoine Boutros, as the foundation of the Crown’s case.
[4] All agree that the principal issue is identification. Antoine Boutros testified that in the 3 to 5 stressful seconds surrounding the event he, despite the darkness, recognized the shooter as one of the Somali brothers who lived across the courtyard from him. In addition, the Crown has tendered evidence from Mr. Ismail’s cell phone, which shows his presence at the crime scene at the material time, as well as some communications and evidence of decisions made by him afterward which the Crown argues are suggestive of consciousness of guilt.
[5] The question is: in all the circumstances, has the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Idres Ismail was the shooter or was acting as a party to the shooting, thereby committing murder or a lesser included offence?
Eye-Witness Identification
[6] Cases that turn on the issue of identification are notorious contributors to the disastrous phenomenon of wrongful conviction. The dangers of eyewitness identification evidence and the risk of miscarriages of justice are well known. The concern, generally, is one of reliability, as opposed to credibility of the eyewitness. There is a real risk of honest but mistaken identifications by well-meaning witnesses. The Court of Appeal for Ontario discussed this at some length in R. v. Jack, 2013 ONCA 80, at paras. 13-14.
[7] The trier of fact must critically examine all the circumstances of the identification evidence. The areas of concern are numerous. I can do no better that Hill J., who set out a non-exhaustive list of things to consider in R. v. Gonsalves, 2008 17559 (ON SC), [2008] OJ No. 2711, at para. 39:
Our experience with eyewitness identification evidence has taught us to use discriminating scrutiny for badges of unreliability. Judicially created checklists, based on long experience with the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification evidence, assist in assessment of the circumstances of a specific identification …. Was the suspect a complete stranger or known to the witness? Was the opportunity to see the suspect a fleeting glimpse or something more substantial? Was the setting in the darkness of night or in well-illuminated conditions? Was the sighting by the witness in circumstances of stress …? Did the witness commit the description to writing or report the description to the police in a timely way? Is the witness’ description general, generic or vague or is there a description of detail including distinctive features of the suspect and his or her clothing ….? Were there intervening circumstances, capable of tainting or contaminating the independence of the identification, between the witness’ initial sighting of the suspect and the rendering of the descriptive account to the police or the court? Has the witness described a distinguishing feature of the suspect not shared by the accused or conversely has the witness’ description of the suspect failed to include mention of a distinctive feature of the accused? Is the eyewitness identification unconfirmed?
[8] Arguably, the most dangerous type of identifications are those involving a very limited opportunity to observe the suspect. As stated in R. v. Pelletier, 2012 ONCA 566, at para. 90:
First, countless authorities acknowledge the inherent frailties of eyewitness identification evidence, especially in cases that involve fleeting glimpses of unfamiliar persons in stressful circumstances.
[9] Also, it has been noted both in the recommendations made by the Sophonow Commission, and in the myriad of cases that have cited the Commission’s findings, there is a very weak link between the confidence of a witness and their accuracy: see R. v. Hanemaayer, 2008 ONCA 580, at paras. 21-22.
[10] I further observe that the risks inherent in eyewitness identification are only amplified where there is a cross racial identification, in particular where the description is generic and could describe any number of people. This is relevant here as Mr. Boutros is endeavouring to identify a black man when he himself is not black. This subject was discussed in R. v. Bao, 2019 ONCA 458, at paras. 21-23:
P.C. Storozuk’s description of the driver was also bereft of any detail – “Asian male, dark hair.” As defence counsel at trial (not Ms. Caterina) submitted, this could describe any Asian male. It may even have been an apt description of the men who were found hiding in the bushes near the crashed minivan. Importantly, this description was not relayed to the dispatcher by P.C. Storozuk as the events unfolded; it was recorded in his notebook after he had viewed the appellant’s OHIP card. The lack of any meaningful description of the driver seriously undermined P.C. Storozuk’s identification evidence. As this court noted in Gough, at para. 37, generic descriptions are of little assistance: see also R. v. Jack, 2013 ONCA 80, 294 C.C.C. (3d) 163, at para. 16; R. v. Ellis, 2008 ONCA 77, at paras. 5, 8.
P.C. Storozuk was also unable to identify any clothing that might have been visible from his vantage point, not even the colour of the clothing that the driver was wearing on the upper part of his body.
There was another need for caution on the part of the trial judge – this was a case of cross-racial identification: see R. v. McIntosh (1997), 1997 3862 (ON CA), 35 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.), at p. 105, leave to appeal refused, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 610; R. v. Richards (2004), 2004 39047 (ON CA), 70 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.), at para. 32; and R. v. Mey, 2011 ONCA 288, 280 O.A.C. 319, at para. 35. The trial judge included this feature in his reference to the inherent frailties of identification evidence generally. However, he never really grappled with this feature in the context of this case. This was a serious issue, especially in light of P.C. Storozuk’s generic description.
[11] I must always keep in mind that despite the superficial appeal of an “I was there, I know what I saw, I saw him” witness, eyewitness identification is nothing more than opinion evidence. The job of the trier of fact is to assess the circumstances underlying that opinion to determine if it is supported and trustworthy. A mere statement that “that is the man” alone is an unsafe foundation for a conviction. Our appellate Courts have been warning of the problem with this type of bald assertion of identification for over 70 years. The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated in R. v. Browne and Angus, [1951] BCJ No. 88, 1951 393 (B.C.C.A.), at paras. 15-16:
A positive statement “that is the man”, when rationalized, is found to be an opinion and not a statement of single fact. All a witness can say is, that because of this or that he remembers about a person, he is of the opinion that person is “the man”. A witness recognizes a person because of a certain personality that person has acquired in the eyes of the witness, which, when associated with something in the mind of the witness, causes the latter to remember that person in a way the witness does not remember any other person.
Unless the witness is able to testify with confidence what characteristics and what “something” has stirred and clarified his memory or recognition, then an identification confined to “that is the man”, standing by itself, cannot be more than a vague general description and is untrustworthy in any sphere of life where certitude is essential.
[12] The same was repeated by the Court of Appeal for Ontario a year later in R. v. Smith, 1952 116 (ON CA), [1952] O.R. 432:
If the identification of an accused depends upon unreliable and shadowy mental operations, without reference to any characteristic which can be described by the witness, and he is totally unable to testify what impression moved his senses or stirred and clarified his meaning, such identification, unsupported and alone, amounts to little more than speculative opinion or unsubstantial conjecture, and at its strongest is a most insecure basis upon which to found that abiding and moral assurance of guilt necessary to eliminate reasonable doubt.
[13] This has been affirmed in countless cases in the years since. In short, a generic description that could fit possibly thousands of individuals and does not allow the trier of fact to distinguish between them will carry little weight: R. v. Foster, 2008 8419, at para. 40.
[14] The fact that an eyewitness knew the suspect does not alleviate the concerns of relying on eyewitness evidence, particularly where there is limited opportunity to observe the assailant. In other words, the fact that a witness invokes recognition testimony in identifying a suspect should not in any way relieve the trial judge from their responsibility to treat that evidence with caution. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Chafe has recently affirmed, relying on its earlier decision in Oliffe, that recognition evidence is a form of identification evidence, and that the same concerns apply, and the same caution must be taken in considering its reliability as in dealing with any other identification evidence. In R. v. Chafe, 2019 ONCA 113, at paras. 31-32, the Court writes as follows:
With respect to recognition evidence, this court said in R. v. Olliffe, 2015 ONCA 242, 322 C.C.C. (3d) 501, at para. 38:
Triers of fact are entitled to take into account whether the witness is acquainted with the accused when assessing the reliability of the identification evidence. Where a witness is known to the accused, the testimony identifying the accused is sometimes referred to as recognition evidence.
It is crucial to remember, though, that recognition evidence is a form of identification evidence. The same level of assessment of the evidence must apply. Continuing on in Olliffe, at para. 39:
It must be remembered, however, that recognition evidence is merely a form of identification evidence. The same concerns apply, and the same caution must be taken in considering its reliability as in dealing with any other identification evidence.
[15] Even where the witness claims to have a prior relationship or acquaintance with the suspect, the quality of the opportunity to observe as well as conflicting evidence are still relevant to the reliability of the identification: R. v. Miller (1998), 1998 5115 (ON CA), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 141 (Ont. C.A), at para. 27.
The Evidence of Antoine Boutros
[16] Antoine Boutros is in his late twenties. He grew up in the Heatherington Road townhome complex and lived there all his life, until he became a witness in this case. He was a longstanding friend of Mouhamed Serhan.
[17] On May 27, 2019 at about 10:40 p.m. he was standing on a sidewalk near one of the parking lots with Mr. Serhan and Ahmed Hassan, otherwise known as Big Bird. The trio were socializing in an ordinary way. Mr. Boutros had his dog with him. A car pulled up to the curb a short distance away. No one paid it any mind. Mr. Boutros remembers that two men approached. While he is not sure, he thinks one or maybe both of them said “what’s up…what’s up”. Then, the shooting happened, and Mr. Serhan lay dead.
[18] Mr. Boutros’s evidence is that he recognized the shooter. It was one of the brothers from the Somalian family that had moved into the unit across from his place about two years before. Mr. Boutros’s family’s front door faced the other family’s front door across an unobstructed lawn over a distance of about 45 feet. While he had never interacted with any of them, he was sure that the shooter was one of the young men from that dwelling.
[19] Police determined who lived in that unit and put a photo line-up to Mr. Boutros. He picked out Mr. Idres Ismail. Later, he would tell police that Mr. Ismail went by a nickname – “Nick Montana” – and that he had seen him around from time to time prior to May 27, 2019. He is certain that he has the right guy.
[20] I have significant reliability concerns about the identification evidence of Antoine Boutros.
[21] At the material time, Mr. Boutros was spending very little time in the Heatherington Road neighbourhood. He had started a car detailing business and was working long and hard, six days a week, setting out each morning at 7 a.m. to return after 8 p.m. On his one day off, he would hang out mostly at a friend’s place at a residence in the project away from the Ismail home. I consider, therefore, that Mr. Boutros would have had very little opportunity to see any of the comings and goings from the Ismail residence in the time proximate to May 2019. It is also worth pointing out that the evidence is that the Ismail brothers were also out and away from the Heatherington Road complex much of the time. None of these fellows struck me as homebodies. As a result, it appears that Mr. Boutros would have crossed paths with Mr. Ismail and his brothers only rarely and sporadically.
[22] While Mr. Boutros’ evidence is recognition evidence in that he was not identifying a stranger, it is not as if he and Mr. Ismail were close or indeed had any relationship at all. Mr. Boutros agreed that he had never had a conversation with Mr. Ismail or even heard his voice before. He had never stood beside him or within 25 feet of him.
[23] I will note the obvious: this shooting unfolded as a surprising and very stressful situation. It came on without warning, seemingly out of the blue. Mr. Boutros remembers the key events as occurring over the span of about 3 to 5 seconds. Because of some construction, there was very limited artificial lighting. It is agreed that the area in question was quite dark. I consider that Mr. Boutros’ ability to observe things was significantly compromised. I will go further and say I was troubled by the inconsistency between Mr. Boutros’ evidence before me about which way he was facing when the shooter and his partner showed up and what he said at the preliminary inquiry on the same subject. At trial he said he was looking in their direction; at the preliminary inquiry, he said they came from behind him as he was looking at Mr. Serhan.
[24] Mr. Boutros’ description of the shooter is quite generic. He describes him as “tall, brown, with black hair”. He is unable to estimate height or weight. He is unable to describe body type, demurring when asked if the shooter was athletic, chubby or stocky. He cannot say if the shooter had any facial hair or anything about his hairstyle. He is unable to describe any clothing or the presence or absence of jewelry. He has given inconsistent evidence about the shooter’s apparent age. At the police station on May 28, 2019 he estimated 17 to 20. At trial he indicated 22 or 23. To my mind, proffering an age description that spans the six years from 17 to 23 is effectively an admission of having no idea.
[25] The most significant reliability concern stems from the fact that, on his own evidence, Mr. Boutros has trouble telling the Ismail brothers apart. He was inconsistent on this subject, at times claiming the ability to pick from amongst them and at times admitting that he could not. In my view, a fair assessment of his evidence is that he simply cannot tell one brother from another with anything close to confidence. I cite the following transcript reference as illustrative of the point:
Mr. Addelman: And part of the reason, or the en - the entire reason you don't know if it's four, five or six young men that are coming and going from that home is because you cannot tell one from the other?
A. No, I can’t – I can’t tell one from the other.
[26] Or later in the cross-examination when the subject is revisited:
Q. Mr. Boutros, you've agreed that you have no way to distinguish between these two brothers. I'm gonna suggest to you, sir, that of all of these young men who live in the house across the street from you, you have a difficult time telling one brother from the other.
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. Yeah, well, I know which brothers, like, you know.
Q. Well, you may note that they’re brothers because they all live in the same house.
A. Yeah.
Q. They’ve never told you, “We’re all brothers”.
A. No, they never told me.
Q. They bear some family resemblance maybe?
A. Maybe, who knows?
Q. You don’t even know if they bear a family resemblance, right?
A. No, I wouldn’t know.
Q. Because you don’t know what they look like. Right?
A. No.
Q. And you would have a hard time telling one brother from the next. Correct?
A. I’m trying.
Q. Is that true or not?
A. Yeah.
[27] Mr. Boutros does not even know how many Ismail brothers there are. The best he can do is estimate: 4, 5, 6 maybe more.
[28] The reason the issue of Mr. Boutros being unable to tell the Ismail brothers apart is so important is that there is some evidence that another of the Ismail brothers may have been at the scene. A cigarette was found close to the shooting location with that other brother’s DNA on it. Moreover, there is some evidence that an Ismail brother may be the declarant on a video message found on the deceased’s cell phone. The video message involves a young black male making what appear to be threats to anyone concerned about the September 2017 shooting death of Mouhamed Serhan’s younger brother Hamzeh, who went by the street name “EZ”. A transcript of the video runs as follows:
your homey got smoked my nigga, hmm, I’ve been smok’n on fuck’n easy (EZ) everyday man, nigga, what the fuck you gonna do about that, uhhh? Take it easy before you end up like easy (EZ), good thing I aint with the (UI) my nigga. You want to pull up on me you know where I’m at. What the fuck.
[29] It is fair to call this video threatening. It appears to indicate that the declarant had something to do with EZ’s death. It challenges the viewer: “what the fuck you gonna do about that” and warns him “take it easy before you end up like EZ”. The “you want to pull up on me you know where I'm at” requires no interpretation.
[30] It is common ground in this trial that the declarant in the video is someone other than Idres Ismail. There is no evidence that Mr. Ismail is connected to the video at all. That said, Mr Ismail looks quite similar to the young man on the video, so much so that the police originally thought it was him. The similarity between Mr. Ismail and this unknown male is relevant when assessing the fact that a witness has identified Mr. Ismail as the shooter in this case. While he does not appear to be the originally intended recipient, Mr. Serhan saw fit to save the video and viewed it sometime before he was killed. He died, therefore, possessed of a phone containing a death threat conceivably made in his direction by someone other than the accused. Indeed, he was killed while holding a record of a death threat possibly made by one of Idres Ismail’s brothers.
[31] In addition to the reliability issues outlined above, I also have some concerns about Mr. Boutros’ credibility. I say this because of the issue of Mr. Ismail’s nickname. Mr. Boutros was interviewed by police for the first time on May 28, 2019. He was asked directly if he knew the shooter’s name or nickname. He said that he did not. My notes have the subject being put to him quite clearly, as follows:
Detective Hill: Okay, we’ll talk about that. The one thing I want to clarify though, because we - We truly want to identify these two guys. And if you can pick them out, do you know their names by any chance?
Boutros: That I don’t know.
Detective Hill: Do you know nicknames?
Boutros: No, I don’t know any nickname or anything. I don’t even talk to these guys.
[32] Months later, Mr. Boutros indicated that he remembered that the shooter went by the nickname “Nick Montana” and that he had heard him be called that by various neighbourhood kids at various times before May 28, 2019. While I might not ordinarily make much of that sort of memory evolution, I learned that Mr. Boutros also has a nickname: “Tony Montana”. It is difficult to accept that Mr. Boutros would have had a nickname so similar to his own just slip his mind on May 28, 2019. One would think that when one goes by “Tony Montana”, the fact that someone living 45 feet away in the same little neighbourhood is going around as “Nick Montana” would make an impression on the brain. More probably, Mr. Boutros learned the “Nick Montana” nickname some time after May 28, 2019 as he discussed things with others from the neighbourhood, endeavouring to piece together who was responsible for the shooting. Mr. Boutros’ present insistence that he was familiar with the “Nick Montana” nickname for Idres Ismail on May 28, 2019 but could not recall it for the police is hard to believe.
The Cell Phone and Text Messages
[33] Of course, I must not assess Antoine Boutros’ evidence in some sort of vacuum. I shall determine the issue of identification on all the evidence. I turn now to the cell phone evidence – the tower information and the texts recovered that record decisions made and communications between Idres Ismail and his then girlfriend Salwa Osman in the hours after the shooting.
[34] I agree with the Crown that the cell phone tower and text information establish that Idres Ismail was present at the shooting and left immediately afterward. Moreover, the text communications show that he was motivated to leave the city soon after the shooting. He called VIA Rail and he looked into an Airbnb so that he and Salwa could go to Montreal. Indeed, when the police first contacted him, he lied about his whereabouts, falsely claiming to be in Montreal.
[35] As well, in the hours after the shooting, Mr. Ismail sent numerous texts to Ms. Osman. The following is a selection of the most relevant. At 23:14, shortly after the 911 call was received at 22:41, Mr. Ismail writes: “I need to move my fams [family] asap babe girl fr [for real]”. At 23:16 he writes: “shit pop off near my house yo plz”. At 23:19, “Wallah I love u I can’t talk to much on here I love you u know that” and at 23:41 “Wallah shit got real babe girl”. Finally, at 23:44 he writes: “I fucked my self up nicely”.
[36] I infer from this after the fact conduct that Mr. Ismail felt a pressing need to refrain from going home and indeed felt a need to flee the city. A desire to leave a scene and especially a desire to stay away from home and instead to leave town after a shooting could be considered after the fact conduct indicative of guilt in respect of that shooting. The desire to flee is a piece of circumstantial evidence relevant to state of mind in the form of consciousness of having done wrong.
[37] I should note here that Mr. Ismail’s desire to flee was somewhat temporary. Even in his text exchanges with Ms. Osman he appears to change his mind about the idea. After hearing from police on May 28th, 2019 that he was wanted for murder he contacted counsel and turned himself in soon thereafter. Nonetheless, I shall consider the after the fact conduct as it might relate to identification, either on its own or as corroboration of the evidence of Mr. Antoine Boutros.
[38] I wish first, however, to discuss a puzzling utterance that occurred in the police interview room on May 28, 2019 immediately after Mr. Boutros had selected Idres Ismail’s photo from the line-up. An exchange between Mr. Boutros and Sergeant O’Brien went like so:
Boutros: Yes.
O’Brien: Okay. Yes what. Who’s this person yes? Why’re you saying yes? How do you recognize them?
Boutros: Well, this person is the face that I saw…
O’Brien: Okay.
Boutros: …that’s the taller guy.
O’Brien: Okay. And who is he in all of this?
Boutros: And this guy lives in … across of my house.
O’Brien: Okay. And what was their involvement in this incident?
Boutros: That I don’t know.
O’Brien: You don’t know.
Boutros: The reason what all that happened, I don’t know. That just happened really quickly.
O’Brien: Okay. All right. So just write yes.
[39] The lead interviewer, Detective Hill comes back in, understandably confused. In short order, Mr. Boutros indicates that he had misunderstood the question and goes back to being quite certain that the man he is identifying is the shooter.
[40] I recognize that no witness is expected to be perfect at all times. However, I cannot fully shake the impression that Mr. Boutros here expressed some hesitation and self-doubt about the nature of the involvement on the part of the man being identified. The question “what was their involvement in this incident?” is pretty simple and clear. The answer “that I don’t know” is worrisome.
[41] When I consider this stumble in light of the DNA evidence that possibly puts another of the Ismail brothers at the scene as well as the video threat on the phone of the deceased that possibly emanates from an Ismail brother other than Idres, and the fact that Mr. Boutros admittedly has trouble telling the Ismail brothers apart, I find a body of evidence crystalizes that at least makes it plausible that Idres Ismail was there, but was not the shooter. I do not say that is what happened, but it is not a proposition I can reject.
[42] After the fact conduct is a form of circumstantial evidence. In order to convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Idres Ismail’s guilt is the only rational inference that can be drawn from the evidence or the absence of evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 SCR 1000, at para. 37. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof required.
[43] If Idres Ismail was the second man, in other words there but not the shooter, it is plausible that he would have conducted himself after the fact in the same way he actually did. As a man present at what was effectively an execution, he might have felt an impulse to leave the scene and maybe even to leave town.
[44] Indeed, it might not have only been the police that Mr. Ismail was worried about facing in the hours after the event. On that front, I found it noteworthy that his first communication to Ms. Osman was about moving his whole family.
[45] That aside, the point is that this concern on his part, in the sense of putting distance between himself and Heatherington Road, might have manifested whether he was the shooter or not.
[46] The same conclusion is available in respect of the utterances. While I do not positively find as such, I do see it as plausible that the words are as consistent with being the shooter as with simply being there as a surprised bystander. The phrase “shit pop off near my house” is clearly a reference to the shooting, but it is in the passive voice and could indicate either guilt or non-guilt. Similarly, “I fucked myself nicely” could mean something like “I fell in with the wrong guy” as readily as it could point to culpability. Lying to the police about one’s whereabouts could indicate a desire to remain uninvolved as a witness just as it could be an attempt to avoid capture. I note that Mr. Ahmed Hassan, one of Mr. Serhan’s friends who was socializing with him as he was killed, also ran off into the night and has since been uncooperative with the authorities.
[47] Since I cannot reject the non-guilt inferences reasonably available on the after the fact conduct and related utterances, I must not use that evidence in support of a conviction.
Included Offences
[48] The Crown submits that even if I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Ismail is the shooter, I may nonetheless find him guilty of murder or a lesser included offence on the basis of party liability.
[49] I cannot agree with this proposal. The only evidence of any conduct or communication on the part of the second man is that he may have joined in saying “what’s up…what’s up” as the pair approached Mr. Serhan. In fact, Mr. Boutros was quite uncertain about whether that was even said and, if it was, by whom. It might have been one of the two or it might have been both, he cannot say. There is absolutely no evidence that the pair were acting in accordance with any agreement or common intention. There is no reason why the second man could not have been as surprised by the shooting as Mr. Serhan and his two friends. The law has long made clear that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not amount to proof of guilt in respect of it.
Conclusion
[50] I have real worry that Antoine Boutros is trying hard to identify Idres Ismail because he is convinced that he is guilty, and he wants to do right by his deceased friend. He has so assured himself of the righteousness of his cause that I think he genuinely believes that he saw what he says he saw. That said, it would be unsafe to convict on the basis of Antoine Boutros’ evidence. It is unacceptably replete with significant reliability and credibility frailties. The after the fact conduct and associated texts do not point to guilt as the only rational or reasonable inference and are therefore unable to supplement the Boutros evidence to the degree called for in the circumstances.
[51] The Crown has failed to discharge its heavy burden. I am left with a reasonable doubt after considering the whole of the evidence. I find Idres Ismail not guilty.
Justice Kevin B. Phillips
Released: June 21, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-6278
DATE: 2021/06/21
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
IDRES ISMAIL
Accused
REASONS FOR DECISION
K. PHILLIPS J.
Released: June 21, 2021