Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-20000300-0000 Date: 2024-12-09 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Between: His Majesty the King And: Richard Samuels and Tafari Minott

Before: Forestell J.

Counsel: Christopher Assie and John Navarrete, for the Crown Rachel Lichtman, for Mr. Samuels James Miglin, for Mr. Minott

Heard: November 26, 2024

Reasons for Sentence

Overview

[1] Mr. Samuels and Mr. Minott both entered guilty pleas before me on November 26, 2024 to the offence of manslaughter in relation to the shooting death of 25-year-old Osman Bangura on October 6, 2022. Mr. Bangura was shot by both men in the course of a struggle over a gun.

Positions of the Parties

[2] The Crown submitted that a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was appropriate for both offenders before credit for pre-sentence custody.

[3] Counsel for Mr. Samuels submitted that a six-year sentence would be appropriate before credit for presentence custody.

[4] Counsel for Mr. Minott also submitted that a sentence of six years’ imprisonment was appropriate for Mr. Minott before credit for presentence custody.

[5] In these reasons I will outline the circumstances of the offence, including the impact on the family of Mr. Bangura before turning to the individual circumstances of each of the two men.

Circumstances of the Offence

[6] The circumstances underlying the offence are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed on the guilty plea.

[7] Mr. Samuels and Mr. Minott became engaged in a verbal altercation with Mr. Bangura. A physical altercation ensued between Mr. Samuels and Mr. Bangura. In the course of the struggle, Mr. Bangura fell over. A loaded handgun fell to the ground from Mr. Bangura. Mr. Samuels retrieved the gun and ran away with it. He was pursued by Mr. Bangura. Mr. Minott followed the two men. Mr. Bangura caught and tackled Mr. Samuels. While Mr. Bangura and Mr. Samuels struggled on the ground, Mr. Minott shot Mr. Bangura and fled. Mr. Samuels then rose from the ground and shot Mr. Bangura using the gun over which they had been struggling.

[8] Both Mr. Samuels and Mr. Minott fled from the scene. Neither gun that was used that day was ever recovered.

[9] As set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts:

Mr. Minott shot Mr. Bangura out of fear that Mr. Bangura would take control of the firearm and shoot him or Mr. Samuels. However, Mr. Bangura did not have the gun and Mr. Minott acknowledges that he used disproportionate force in the circumstances.

Mr. Samuels shot Mr. Bangura while running away out of fear that Mr. Bangura would try to get the firearm by force and use it on him. Mr. Bangura did not have a firearm at the time and Mr. Samuels acknowledges that he used disproportionate force in the circumstances.

[10] The parties agree that the conduct of both Mr. Minott and Mr. Samuels in shooting Mr. Bangura exceeded the scope of self-defence as set out in s. 34 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

Victim Impact

[11] Victim impact statements were filed in this case. The statements describe the devastating effect of this offence on the mother, spouse and siblings of Mr. Bangura.

[12] Mr. Bangura’s mother described him as a kind, loving and generous young man. She experienced the unimaginable trauma of watching her son lose his life in front of her. His spouse and two children continue to suffer from his loss. His wife gave birth to their youngest child without him. She struggles with her grief while also struggling to raise two children alone.

[13] His sister and brother continue to suffer and grieve the loss of their brother.

[14] I have considered the impact of the offence as disclosed by the Victim Impact Statements in determining the appropriate sentence. I recognize, however, that the pain of this family will not be relieved by any sentence that is imposed.

Circumstances of Mr. Samuels

[15] Mr. Samuels is 25 years old. He was 22 at the time of the offence. He has two sons aged three and five years. He was involved with his children before his arrest and incarceration. Before this offence he lived with his mother and his siblings. He is very close to his family. He was raised by his mother who worked at multiple jobs to support her children. The family struggled financially. Mr. Samuels had no real relationship with his father who dropped into his life only sporadically. Mr. Samuels is a young Black man. He grew up in an underserved community that was rife with gun violence. He heard gunshots often, even as a very young child. He witnessed shootings. He has lost seven close friends to gun violence.

[16] Mr. Samuels struggled in school and dropped out by grade 10. Since he has been incarcerated, he has completed all but one of his high school credits.

[17] Mr. Samuels has a youth record with entries in 2016 and 2017 for possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, failing to comply with a recognizance, and possession of a prohibited device or ammunition.

[18] Mr. Samuels has been incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre for 784 days. He spent about 36% of his time in lockdown. He was triple bunked for several months.

[19] There is no question that the conditions at the detention centre during Mr. Samuels’ incarceration have been extremely harsh. Being locked in a small cell for extended periods of time without access to phones or showers is inhumane. It has been pointed out in many cases, but bears repeating, that these conditions are completely unacceptable. Lockdowns deprive prisoners of access to family support and lawyers. Lockdowns force prisoners to urinate and defecate in front of their cellmates and in the same area where they eat. Lack of access to basic hygiene makes it all the more difficult for prisoners to be locked together in a small area. It raises tension in the jail. Lockdowns prevent prisoners from engaging in even minimal exercise.

[20] I accept that these conditions have impacted on Mr. Samuels and that his present detention has been particularly onerous.

Circumstances of Mr. Minott

[21] Mr. Minott is 23 years old now and was 21 years old at the time of the offence. He left school without completing grades 11 and 12. He pursued a music career and was very successful. He has multiple videos and two albums, and he has performed widely. Mr. Minott helped to support his mother and siblings before his arrest.

[22] Before his conviction for this offence, Mr. Minott had no criminal or youth record. The conviction for this offence will likely have a significant effect on his music career by restricting his ability to travel.

[23] Mr. Minott is also a young Black man. He was raised by a single mother in an underserved neighbourhood where gun violence was common. He was shot in the leg in a random shooting in 2020.

[24] Mr. Minott has been engaged with a community organization called ‘Royalty Helping Hands’ in a writing program. He has expressed through his writing, a desire to understand his choices and make changes. Since his incarceration, Mr. Minott has participated in and completed 13 programs and he has worked towards completing his high school education. Mr. Minott continues to have the support of his family and other community members.

[25] Mr. Minott has been incarcerated in the Toronto East Detention Centre and the Toronto South Detention Centre for a total of 564 days. During that time, he was locked down for 90 days and triple bunked for 26 days. As with Mr. Samuels, I accept that the lockdowns and triple-bunking had an impact on Mr. Minott and that they were unduly harsh.

Sentencing Principles and Analysis

[26] In determining an appropriate sentence I have considered the principles and objectives established by the Criminal Code and the case law.

[27] I have considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence and the offenders.

[28] Aggravating factors are:

Mr. Minott was carrying a loaded illegal firearm in public.

Mr. Samuels shot the victim when the victim was no longer armed.

Mr. Samuels has a youth record.

Both Mr. Samuels and Mr. Minott disposed of the guns they used.

[29] There are also mitigating factors.

It is significantly mitigating that both offenders entered guilty pleas at an early stage and accepted responsibility for their conduct.

They did so even though there were triable issues in the case.

Both offenders had legitimate self-defence concerns although their actions were disproportionate in the circumstances.

Mr. Minott has no criminal record.

[30] The fundamental principle of sentencing set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code is that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[31] The purpose of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to “contribute …to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; …and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community”.

[32] Deterrence and denunciation are generally the dominant sentencing objectives in sentencing for manslaughter.

[33] Mr. Samuels and Mr. Minott are both youthful offenders. Mr. Minott is a first offender. Mr. Samuels has never received a custodial sentence.

[34] The Court of Appeal has held that where a penitentiary sentence must be imposed on a youthful first offender, the sentence should be as short as possible: R. v. Vandale. The Court of Appeal has held that sentences at the lower end of the range of what constitutes an appropriate sentence may be appropriate for youthful offenders with good prospects for rehabilitation: R. v. Green, [1982] O.J. No. 2504; R. v. Hayman; R. v. Priest.

[35] Courts are also obliged to consider other cases and to impose similar sentences for similar offences and offenders: Section 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code; R. v. Devaney. The circumstances of offenders and offences vary widely. This is particularly true in sentencing for manslaughter. Nevertheless, several of the cases provided by counsel are instructive in determining the appropriate sentence in this case.

[36] In the case of R. v. Young, 2022 ONSC 1143, I imposed a sentence of five years on a youthful first offender who shot the victim during a struggle. Harsh conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic played a role in reducing the sentence from the otherwise appropriate sentence of five years and seven months.

[37] In R. v. Khill, 2023 ONSC 3374, the offender shot the victim who was trying to steal the truck of the offender. He was sentenced to eight years. However, in an unusual turn of events, the trial judge later clarified for the Court of Appeal that he had intended to impose a sentence of six years.

[38] In R. v. Pintar, [1994] O.J. No. 1435, an older first offender was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for shooting and killing two men who came to his home and threatened him and his daughter.

[39] In R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONSC 5689, the offender shot the victim in self-defence but did not intend to kill him. The offender had a minor criminal record and was sentenced to nine years.

[40] Sentencing is a highly individualized process.

[41] In determining a fit sentence for Mr. Samuels, I have considered his role in the offence. Although self-defence was a factor at the outset of the encounter, he shot Mr. Bangura after he knew him to be disarmed. This is an aggravating factor. However, Mr. Samuels is a youthful offender. He has good prospects for rehabilitation. He has already taken important steps towards rehabilitation by pursuing his education. His guilty plea is highly mitigating. He has taken responsibility for his conduct. Mr. Samuels has experienced extremely harsh conditions throughout his pre-sentence custody. These conditions also serve to mitigate the sentence: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344. Having weighed all of these factors, I have concluded that a sentence of six years’ imprisonment should be imposed before credit for presentence custody.

[42] I have reached the conclusion that the same sentence should be imposed on Mr. Minott. Mr. Minott was carrying a gun in public on the day of the offence. This is an aggravating circumstance. There was a strong element of self-defence because Mr. Bangura was not yet clearly disarmed when Mr. Minott shot him. Like Mr. Samuels, Mr. Minott has pleaded guilty at an early stage and has taken responsibility for his conduct. He had no record before this offence and has good prospects for rehabilitation. He has taken steps towards rehabilitation while in custody and has completed many programs and pursued his education. He has also experience harsh conditions of presentence custody. In all of the circumstances, he should receive the same sentence as Mr. Samuels.

Conclusion

[43] Therefore, the sentence I impose on Mr. Samuels is six years’ imprisonment, or 2,192 days, before credit for presentence custody. Mr Samuels has spent 784 actual days in presentence custody. With credit at 1.5:1 of 1,176 days, this leaves 1,016 days left to serve (or approximately two years and 9.5 months).

[44] There will be a s. 109 order prohibiting Mr. Samuels from possession of any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

[45] Manslaughter is a "primary designated offence" in s. 487.04, the section of the Criminal Code dealing with forensic DNA analysis and the securing of DNA samples. As such, s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code makes such an order mandatory. Therefore, I order that Mr. Samuels provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

[46] With respect to Mr. Minott, I also impose a sentence of six years’ imprisonment before credit for presentence custody. Mr. Minott has spent 564 actual days in presentence custody. With credit at 1.5:1 of 846 days, this leaves 1,346 days left to serve (or approximately three years and 8.5 months).

[47] I also make a s.109 order for life and a DNA order with respect to Mr. Minott.

Forestell J. Released: December 9, 2024