COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-1-261
DATE: 20230523
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
SAAID MOHIADIN
Counsel: Tim DiMuzio and David Parry, for the Crown Dirk Derstein and Malaika Henriques, for the accused
Heard: May 23, 2023
K.L. Campbell J.:
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
A. Overview
[1] On May 12, 2023, after a trial spanning many weeks, the accused, Saaid Mohiadin, was found guilty, by a jury, of the first-degree, "planned and deliberate" murder of Jerome Belle. The offence took place in Toronto, on the afternoon of March 19, 2019. The accused was arrested for this offence nearly a year later, on March 12, 2020, and he has been in custody ever since. Indeed, he was arrested and kept in custody even before then in relation to an unrelated matter.
[2] In any event, the accused must now be sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, without being eligible for release on parole for 25 years, pursuant to the combination of ss. 235 and 745(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, chap. C-46. That is the custodial sentence that will be imposed upon the accused.
[3] Typically, the imposition of such a sentence does not require any sort of detailed explanation. The sentence is a mandatory minimum sentence and must, as a matter of law, be imposed, regardless of the personal circumstances of the accused, the positions of the parties, or any other potentially relevant sentencing factors.
[4] The authorities are clear that this mandatory minimum sentence is not in violation of any constitutional right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See, for example: R. v. Mitchell (1987), 1987 CanLII 128 (NS CA), 39 C.C.C. (3d) 141 (N.S.C.A.); R. v. Cairns (1989), 1989 CanLII 7224 (BC CA), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 90 (B.C.C.A.) at pp. 103-104; R. v. Luxton, 1990 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711, 58 C.C.C. (3d) 449; R. v. Kay, 1990 ABCA 317; 59 C.C.C. (3d) 515; R. v. Lefebvre (1992), 1992 CanLII 3937 (QC CA), 72 C.C.C. (3d) 162 (Que.C.A.); leave denied (1992), 72 C.C.C. (3d) vi (S.C.C.); R. v. Newborn, 2020 ABCA 120, 390 C.C.C. (3d) 86, at paras. 28-40, 57-92; leave denied: [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 282.
[5] This is the second murder conviction of the accused. However, s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which provides that where an accused is convicted of multiple murders, the trial judge may, under certain circumstances, impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility in relation to each murder, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. See: R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23.
[6] In the result, given that the accused will be eligible for release on parole after serving 25 years in prison in connection with this sentence of life imprisonment, I thought it appropriate to provide these reasons for sentence, at least for the future assistance of the parole authorities. Needless to say, perhaps, this is not a "typical" case – even for those few offenders who have been convicted of the most serious offence known to the criminal law. That is so, because, as I have already suggested, this accused, despite his relatively young age of 32 years, has now been convicted of two entirely separate first-degree murders, in addition to all of the other crimes displayed on his unenviable criminal record.
[7] Indeed, in my view, the accused is an inherently dangerous individual, who poses a special danger to the public – and this factor is one that should properly be taken into account by any member of the parole authorities when considering his potential release back into civilized society at any point in time in the future.
B. The Facts of This First-Degree Murder Case
[8] In conjunction with the verdict unanimously reached by the jury in this case, I am satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Crown has established all of the following facts in this case.
[9] Jerome Belle was shot to death on the afternoon of March 19, 2019, at approximately 3:25 p.m., near the intersection of Randolph Avenue and Bloom Street in the city of Toronto. This happened while Mr. Belle was in the company of another individual, Ryan Garballa, who was out walking his dog, and who was himself physically unharmed in the shooting, notwithstanding the fact that he was right beside Mr. Belle when the shooting commenced.
[10] The accused had earlier planned and deliberated over the killing of Mr. Belle, and then, on the afternoon of March 19, 2019, he saw an opportunity to put his plan into action, and he then executed that plan. Indeed, in my view, the circumstances surrounding the killing of Jerome Belle really permit no other reasonable conclusion – once the alibi evidence is rejected.
[11] The accused had made arrangements earlier that day (March 19, 2019) to have his friend, Ms. Abdi, come and pick him up in her car. Accordingly, she could, unwittingly, provide the accused with the necessary "getaway" car following the killing. Indeed, based upon her evidence, that is, in fact, exactly what the accused did. He took advantage of her friendship, and her willingness to drive him to different locations around the city, as he wished, to enlist her assistance in escaping from the scene of the murder.
[12] At the time of the killing, the accused was dressed in a "white hoodie" sweater, and he had pulled the hood of the sweater up over his head, and had drawn the hood tightly around his face, so that little of his face could be seen. This individual is, fortuitously, seen getting out of a white Mercedes Benz vehicle, parked relatively close to the geographic location of the killing, just minutes before the shooting, and is seen again, quickly returning to that same vehicle just minutes after the gun shots were fired, killing Jerome Belle. Indeed, this aspect of the case was helpfully recorded on a surveillance camera attached to a passing Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) "Wheel Trans" bus – but the actual killing happened just outside the scope of this surveillance video camera.
[13] In his evidence, Mr. Garballa explained how the man wearing the "white hoodie" – the accused – approached he and Mr. Belle and how the man in the "white hoodie" immediately shot Mr. Belle, from relatively close range, numerous times. The shooter then quickly returned in the direction of the parked white Mercedes Benz vehicle. Mr. Belle was pronounced dead a short time later at a Toronto hospital, despite the speedy medical efforts of the paramedics who arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting.
[14] Given the speed of the shooting, and the fact that no words were exchanged between the accused and Mr. Belle, there could be no realistic suggestion that the killing was provoked, or accidental, or done in self-defence. Indeed, there was no such suggestion by defence counsel for the accused. Clearly, the killing of Mr. Belle by the accused was intentional.
[15] The driver of the white Mercedes Benz vehicle was a young woman named Sagal Abdi. The jury was obviously impressed by her testimony, and clearly accepted it as truthful, significantly corroborated as it was. Ms. Abdi provided direct evidence in this case, clearly identifying the accused as the man wearing the "white hoodie," and who is seen getting out of, and then getting back in to, her car, right before, and then right after, the shooting. Ms. Abdi was a close personal friend of the accused at the time of the shooting, and communicated with him on a daily basis, and often drove him to and from his nearby home and around to various different locations, around the time of the shooting.
[16] Ms. Abdi testified that, on the afternoon of March 19, 2019, she picked up the accused at his nearby home at the foot of Bloom Street, at his request, and she then followed his directions to where she parked her vehicle, near the intersection of Perth Avenue and Randolph Avenue. She understood, from what the accused told her, that he was going home to retrieve something he forgot to bring with him. While Ms. Abdi had offered to drive him home for this purpose, the accused told her to just wait in her car for his return. She did.
[17] Many of the relevant events leading to the killing (but not the killing itself) were captured on the various surveillance cameras in the area. Viewed cumulatively and in sequence, the police-seized video recordings, together with the accompanying viva voce witness testimony, prove all of the following events beyond a reasonable doubt:
- At approximately 3:17 p.m. on March 19, 2019, two men walked down a staircase on the west side of the building located at 140 Perth Avenue, and headed south, down to near where Bloom Street turns the corner and changes from being a north-south road to being an east-west road. The accused lived in a residence just across the street, on the south side of Bloom Street (even though the municipal address of the building was on nearby Perth Avenue).
- At approximately 3:22 p.m. on March 19, 2019, two men (and a dog) leave one of the apartment buildings in the area via the "south stairway." These two men were clearly Mr. Belle and Mr. Garballa. Further, once they exited the building, they were very close to the accused's residence, and could easily have been seen by the accused from his home. Indeed, I have no doubt that they were seen by the accused.
- At approximately 3:22 p.m. on March 19, 2019, a white Mercedes Benz (matching the description of the vehicle driven by Ms. Abdi) is travelling southbound on Bloom Street (from Randolph Avenue), heading in the direction of the accused's residence. Ms. Abdi confirmed that she was alone in this vehicle as she travelled to pick up the accused.
- At approximately 3:23 p.m. on March 19, 2019, a white automobile is parked on the east-west section of Bloom Street, near the front of the accused's residence. Ms. Abdi confirmed that this was where she always parked her car in order to pick up the accused from his residence, as she had done many times in the recent past.
- At approximately 3:23 p.m. on March 19, 2019, the white car moved in an easterly direction along Bloom Street, towards Perth Avenue. Ms. Abdi explained that the accused called her on the phone and told her to pull her vehicle up further on Bloom Street to pick him up. The accused had never done this before. The accused did this, in my view, so that he would not be seen, by Mr. Belle, leaving his residence.
- When the accused left his residence on the afternoon of March 19, 2019, he clearly had a loaded gun in his possession – the very firearm he used to kill Mr. Belle just a few minutes later, according to the combined testimony of Ms. Abdi and Mr. Garballa.
- The white Mercedes Benz vehicle, turned left (north) on Perth Avenue, from Bloom Street, and then turned left again (west) on Randolph Avenue, where it parked near the intersection. According to Ms. Abdi, the accused directed her to this location and, during their brief time together in her vehicle, and before he first exited her vehicle, the accused took off his black "puffer" jacket. Thereafter, he was wearing the "white hoodie" sweater. When the accused left her vehicle, he was wearing this "white hoodie," with the hood pulled up over his head and drawn tightly around his face, so as to conceal his identity.
- The accused had to have seen Mr. Belle heading northbound on Bloom Street, with Mr. Garballa and his dog, as within a couple of minutes of being picked up by Ms. Abdi, the accused directed Ms. Abdi to drive to a location (and park her car) geographically near where he anticipated Mr. Belle would be – if Mr. Belle and Mr. Garballa continued walking northbound on Bloom Street (in the direction they were headed when they were seen by the accused).
- At approximately 3:24 p.m. on March 19, 2019, two men (Mr. Garballa and Mr. Belle) were walking northbound on Bloom Street, walking a dog. By approximately 3:25 p.m. those two men had walked northbound up beside the playground structure near the intersection of Bloom Street and Randolph Avenue. They eventually continued walking north, off the screen, to the geographical area where the killing of Mr. Belle took place. Mr. Garballa explained that, when they got there, the man wearing the "white hoodie," ran toward them and, with no verbal exchange at all, the man in the "white hoodie" (the accused) just started shooting Mr. Belle. Once he had shot Mr. Belle multiple times, the accused then turned around and ran back towards the parked white Mercedes Benz of Ms. Abdi. Mr. Belle was just left, dying on the ground. He was pronounced dead a short time later at a Toronto hospital.
[18] After the accused returned to her parked white Mercedes Benz vehicle (after he had shot Mr. Belle), the accused told Ms. Abdi to drive away, and he directed her, ultimately, to a parking lot in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue, some considerable distance away.
[19] As Ms. Abdi testified, during their travels to this location, the accused told her a number of things, including: (1) He said: "This is the hood – shootings happen every day;" (2) He told her to "get rid of [her] vehicle," and that she could not drive the car anymore, for at least a couple of weeks; and (3) he told her that they would "have to get married so that [she] could not testify against [him]."
[20] Ms. Abdi testified that, a day or two later, she saw a "Snapchat" message from the accused and ultimately saw a "snap" video that had been posted, which included the accused and some of his friends talking and laughing about a "headshot." According to Ms. Abdi, in this video, the accused had dyed the tips of his dreadlocks from "red to black" (so they looked different than they did the day before). Ms. Abdi testified that she communicated later that same day with the accused, indicating that she was "upset" in that it had become "evident what he had done," without "any remorse" and asking why he would "drag [her] into this." The accused responded, by text, to the effect: "You don't understand – it was kill or be killed – this guy was standing in front of my Mom's house where my mom and my niece lived."
[21] During the trial, defence counsel for the accused, advanced the theory that the accused was not, in fact, responsible for the killing of Mr. Belle. Indeed, the defence adduced evidence of an "alibi," suggesting that the accused was inside his parent's residence for the entire day on March 19, 2019, and, therefore, could not have killed Mr. Belle. Indeed, the defence called a number of witnesses in support of this "alibi," including the accused's mother (Idman Said) and his brother (Suleyman Mohiadin). By their verdict, the jury clearly rejected this evidence in its entirety, as incredible, as the jury was perfectly entitled to do.
[22] While the defence did not expressly argue, to the jury, that this was a second-degree murder, not a first-degree murder, at the close of the case for the Crown, the defence brought a non-suit application, contending that the Crown had led no evidence that this was a "planned and deliberate" first-degree murder on the part of the accused. I dismissed that application. See: R. v. Mohiadin, 2023 ONSC 2520. I concluded, essentially, that there was, indeed, evidence of "planning and deliberation" on the part of the accused, and that the jury could reasonably conclude that this was a "planned and deliberate" first-degree murder on the part of the accused. Ultimately, the jury reached that reasonable conclusion.
[23] Nevertheless, I note in passing that, even if the accused had only been found guilty of having committed a second-degree murder in connection with his killing of Mr. Belle, he would still have had to receive the same sentence that must be imposed today, given the operation of s. 745(b) of the Criminal Code – which treats a second murder conviction (of any degree) as a first-degree murder for purposes of sentencing (i.e. requiring the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years).
C. The Criminal Record of the Accused
[24] As I noted in an earlier ruling, the accused already has a significant criminal record, starting in 2012, which displays convictions for a number of criminal offences, including the unauthorized possession of a firearm, failing to comply with a recognizance, possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order, assault with a weapon, failing to attend court, threatening to cause death or bodily harm, and obstructing a peace officer.
[25] Most significantly, and most recently, on December 6, 2022, the accused was convicted of the offence of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, without eligibility for release on parole until he has served 25 years of that sentence.
[26] In these circumstances, the accused would appear to be precisely the kind of offender who was designed to be addressed by the enactment of s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code. In other words, the accused has committed two entirely separate incidents of first-degree murder. Yet, while he has been found criminally responsible for the separate killings of two different individuals, at different times, and in different locations, his sentences of life imprisonment (and the coincident periods of parole ineligibility of 25 years) must be served concurrently – resulting now in the imposition of a sentence that is not significantly longer for the commission of his second murder. Needless to say, perhaps, the accused is very fortunate in this regard – whether he knows it or not.
D. The Victim Impact Evidence
[27] The Victim Impact Evidence in this case (Exhibit #1) was prepared by Nichole Belle, Veronica Belle, Chanelle Belle and Cherelle Belle. This document outlines the devastating personal consequences that the Belle Family has suffered as a result of the murder of Jerome Belle by the accused. While I am unable to accurately detailed all of those circumstances, it is fair to observed that the Belle Family has been truly overwhelmed by this senseless murder, immediately (and forever) depriving them of a much-loved brother, nephew, cousin, uncle, friend and son.
E. Conclusion – The Sentence Imposed
[28] In the result, the accused is now sentenced to life imprisonment. He shall not be eligible for release on parole until he has served at least 25 years of this custodial sentence.
[29] There are also three incidental sentencing orders that, in my view, must also be made in the circumstances of this case.
[30] First, pursuant to ss. 109(1)(a) and 109(3) of the Criminal Code, I order that the accused is prohibited from the possession of any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for the rest of his life.
[31] Second, as the accused has been found guilty of committing a "primary designated offence" as defined by s. 487.04(a) of the Criminal Code, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, I make an order in Form 5.03, to have samples of bodily substances taken from the accused for purposes of forensic DNA analysis.
[32] Third, pursuant to s. 743.21(1) there will be an order prohibiting the accused from having any communication, direct or indirect, with Nichole Belle, Chanelle Belle, Cherelle Kent, Veronica Belle, and/or Sagal Abdi, for the rest of his life.
Kenneth L. Campbell J.
Released: May 23, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-1-261
DATE: 20230523
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
SAAID MOHIADIN
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
K.L. Campbell J.
Released: May 23, 2023