Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-0141-00 Date: 2025-07-30 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Henok Banjaw, Accused

Counsel: H. Bracken, for the Crown M. Hargadon, for the Accused

Heard: July 30, 2025, Thunder Bay, Ontario

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice S. J. Wojciechowski

Reasons for Sentence

Overview

[1] Henok Banjaw was charged with manslaughter with respect to his alleged role in the events which led to the death of Adrian Richardson. After entering a plea of not guilty, the trial commenced with jury selection, but before any evidence was called, Henok Banjaw agreed that his plea be struck, and upon being rearraigned on April 17, 2025, he plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter.

[2] On April 17, 2025, an "Authorization and Direction: Plea of Guilt and Sentencing" document signed by Henok Banjaw was filed and entered as Exhibit "A" to the sentencing hearing of Henok Banjaw. Included in Exhibit "A" was an acknowledgment of Henok Banjaw dated April 15, 2025 to the facts and issues underlying a section 606 plea inquiry, an Agreed Statement of Facts, as well as the details of the joint submissions with respect to sentencing.

[3] A co-accused, Telique Ricketts, also faced charges relating to the death of Adrian Richardson, and those charges proceeded through a jury trial which, midway through, resolved with a guilty plea. Because Henok Banjaw entered a guilty plea before the calling of evidence during the jury trial, Exhibit "A" was ordered sealed in accordance with section 648 of the Criminal Code, and the Agreed Statement of Facts was not read into the record in order to preserve the integrity of the trial process involving Telique Ricketts.

[4] Today, upon hearing the victim impact statements from family members of Adrian Richardson, the Agreed Statement of Facts was acknowledged by this court as being sufficient to support the charge of manslaughter, a conviction was entered, and sentencing submissions were presented on the basis of a joint submission.

[5] In considering what an appropriate sentence should be, I want to start off by repeating what I said at the sentencing hearing of Telique Ricketts. No matter what sentence I impose, nothing can fill the tremendous void left in the lives of the family of Adrian Richardson caused by his death. The victim impact statements make it clear that Adrian Richardson was a vibrant, admired, cherished and very much loved member of his family. Because of his death, Adrian Richardson's family has been robbed and forever denied the joy which he brought to those closest to him.

[6] While this matter is proceeding on the basis of a joint submission, I want the family of Adrian Richardson to know that I have taken into account all of your comments which were presented and filed when considering whether or not to accept the sentencing position presented to me by the Crown and Defence counsel.

[7] I have reviewed the twenty-five written victim impact statements which were filed as Exhibit "B" to this sentencing hearing, all of which provided insight into the man who was Adrian Richardson.

[8] My review of these victim impact statements makes it clear that Adrian Richardson was a significant part of his family's identity which has been forever scarred by the senseless violence which occurred in Adrian Richardson's home on May 2, 2022, in which Henok Banjaw played a role.

[9] Adrian Richardson had a mother and a father, along with two siblings, numerous cousins as well as aunts and uncles, all of whom loved him very much and were very much loved by Adrian Richardson.

[10] Reading from various statements provided to me by the family of Adrian Richardson, the following comments were very impactful:

a. Adrian had a heart of gold and lit up any room he entered with his warm bright smile.

b. His heart was pure…. He had that rare, genuine warmth. Adrian's smile was unlike any other. It wasn't just a smile; it was an invitation – a warm welcome that made everyone around him feel seen and valued.

c. He was loving, kind-hearted, bright, and full of life . . . . He brought joy and laughter to everyone fortunate enough to know him. His laughter is unforgettable, his hugs were embracing and his love was undeniable.

[11] And speaking about the impact the death of Adrian Richardson, the mother of the deceased directs these comments to the accused:

You … took his dreams, his future, and everything he was meant to become. You left a wound and are part of the reason that my heart will never heal. You destroyed a young man who was finding his way, who loved deeply, and who was starting to build a life he was proud of.

… I will never see him get married, have children, or achieve the goals he had worked so hard for. My life now is haunted by the things he will never get to do or experience with me, and the others. The immense pain of what has been lost echoes daily, and I carry this sorrow with me every day, and it affects every part of my life…. There is no moving on from losing a child. It is unbearable.

[12] Finally, the deceased's younger sister described her brother's enduring impact upon her family:

I know Adrian's spirit is not gone…. He still matters. He will always matter; the love we had for him will continue to live long after this courtroom is silent.

[13] I thank all of those individuals who took the time to prepare and file a victim impact statement for my review, and I acknowledge the courage it took for all of you to express your feelings to this court.

The Facts

A. Circumstances of the Offence

[14] An Agreed Statement of Facts was entered as evidence and provided a description of the events which unfolded and led to the death of Adrian Richardson.

[15] On the evening of May 2, 2022, Telique Ricketts and three other individuals – Jacob Green, Aiden Collander, and Henok Banjaw – got together at the apartment and residence of Telique Ricketts located at 911 Victoria Avenue East in Thunder Bay. After departing the Victoria Avenue apartment, the four individuals travelled in a black SUV operated by Henok Banjaw, and together made their way to Adrian Richardson's residence located on Hodder Avenue.

[16] After arriving at their destination, Telique Ricketts, Aiden Collander and Jacob Green exited the vehicle and broke into the Hodder Avenue residence. Henok Banjaw remained in the black SUV, and waited for Ricketts, Collander and Green to return.

[17] In the process of searching the residence for drugs and money, Adrian Richardson suddenly came out of hiding, and running out of a bedroom said, "the police are on the way".

[18] Telique Ricketts and Jacob Green then exited the bedroom they were in, and a single gunshot was fired by Telique Ricketts at Adrian Richardson which resulted in the death of Adrian Richardson.

[19] After Adrian Richardson was shot, the three men immediately left the Hodder Avenue apartment and were picked up by Henok Banjaw who was waiting for them in the black SUV. They then drove away together, and after parking the black SUV they separated. Eventually they made their way, in pairs, to a bar called Centerfolds. There, they sat and discussed what had happened, without knowing the extent of the injury sustained by Adrian Richardson.

[20] Adrian Richardson suffered a single gunshot wound to his face, and his cause of death was determined to be the gunshot injury which resulted from Telique Ricketts' actions.

[21] Before this incident, Henok Banjaw was an associate of Telique Ricketts, knowing that Ricketts was involved in the drug trade and driving him to various mid-level drug dealers for Ricketts to collect money.

[22] On the evening in question, Henok Banjaw was asked by Telique Ricketts to assist with a collection from Adrian Richardson, and during the drive to the Hodder Avenue residence, Henok Banjaw understood that violence might be necessary, making it a distinct possibility with the fact that Green and Collander had been recruited to participate in the collection operation.

[23] Despite this knowledge, Henok Banjaw drove himself and the three others to and from Adrian Richardson's home. After departing the Hodder Avenue residence, Henok Banjaw became aware that Adrian Richardson had been shot, but did not know the extent of his injuries.

B. Circumstances of the Offender

[24] At the time of the offence, Henok Banjaw was 29 years old. He did not have a criminal record, and from the submissions of his counsel, was part of a devout Christian family who fled the civil war in Ethiopia to Sudan, and came to Canada as a refugee sponsored by their church in Thunder Bay.

[25] Unfortunately, Henok Banjaw was not able to come to Canada until he was 18 years old and able to secure travel documents. Until then, he lived with his grandmother in Ethiopia from the age of 5 to the time Canada recognized his refugee status.

[26] At the time he came to Canada, he had only attained a grade 6 education, but within two years had completed the requirements for his high school diploma. He worked in various capacities during his twenties, living with his family and being involved in his community.

[27] Approximately six months before he participated in the events which led to the death of Adrian Richardson, he moved out of his family home, found himself unemployed, and began driving for Telique Ricketts which led him to be before the court today.

Legal Parameters

[28] The offence of manslaughter is found in section 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 ("the Code"), and does not provide for a minimum punishment but could result in imprisonment for life.

Joint Submission of the Crown and the Defence

[29] The position of the Crown and the Defence is that the sentence for Henok Banjaw be as follows:

a. A sentence of imprisonment of four years' duration, which is 1,460 days.

b. Against the four year sentence, a number of credits will apply, namely:

i. Summers enhanced credit for the 744 days spent in pre-sentence detention initially following his arrest which works out to a credit of 1,116 days;

ii. Downes credit for the period of time during which Henok Banjaw was subject to conditions of house arrest during his bail to the date of his guilty plea, this being for a period of 286 days which results in a credit of 72 days;

iii. Additional Downes credit for the period of house arrest between his guilty plea on April 17, 2025 to the date he surrendered himself into custody on July 3, 2025, which is 41 days resulting in 27 days of credits; and

iv. Additional Summers credits for the period of incarceration between July 3, 2025 and today's date which is 27 days that results in a credit of an additional 41 days.

c. Once all credits are applied, Henok Banjaw will be subject to an effective sentence of 211 days imprisonment going forward.

d. A subsequent 12 month term of probation shall apply once Henok Banjaw is released, subject to the following conditions:

i. That he keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

ii. That he report immediately upon his release to a Probation Officer, that he remain under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and that under the supervision of his Probation Officer he attend counselling and programming as deemed appropriate and directed by the Probation Officer.

iii. That he refrain from contacting or communicating with Telique Ricketts, Aiden Collander, and Jacob Green;

e. Pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code, Henok Banjaw shall be subject to a weapons and firearms and explosives prohibition for life;

f. Henok Banjaw will provide a sample of a bodily substance for forensic DNA analysis on a primary designated offence basis; and

g. Henok Banjaw will pay a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $200.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[30] I agree with the positions put forth by the Crown and the Defence with respect to the mitigating and aggravating factors in play in this case.

[31] The factors which are aggravating and call for a harsher sentence include the fact that Henok Banjaw was aware that attending Adrian Richardson's residence for the purposes of a collection operation by Ricketts, Collander and Green could very well result in violence, and that Henok Banjaw knew Telique Ricketts possessed a firearm.

[32] In addition, while knowing afterwards that Adrian Richardson had been shot and not knowing the extent of his injuries, Henok Banjaw did not take any steps to contact EMS and alert them to Adrian Richardson's need for medical attention.

[33] Mitigating factors in this case include the fact that Henok Banjaw did not actively participate in the home invasion and shooting of Adrian Richardson, and that Henok Banjaw took responsibility for his role in this series of events by pleading guilty to manslaughter before the formal portion of his trial commenced, not requiring the jury to hear and decide the case against him and allowing the matter to proceed solely against the individual who shot and killed Adrian Richardson.

[34] Henok Banjaw also has a supportive family and community, including his church, which will support his efforts at rehabilitation once released from custody.

[35] At the end of the sentencing hearing, I asked Henok Banjaw if he wished to say anything, and he stood to address the court.

[36] In his remarks, he said several times he was truly sorry for what happened to Adrian Richardson.

Principles of Sentencing

[37] Section 718 of the Code sets out the following principles and objectives of sentencing:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, 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 and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by 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;

e. to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

f. to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[38] Section 718.1 requires that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In other words, the more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender's degree of responsibility, the harsher the sentence will be: see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089.

[39] Further sentencing principles that must guide the court are set out in s. 718.2 of the Code.

[40] Section 718.2(a) requires that a sentence be increased to account for any aggravating factors or reduced to account for any mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances generally tend to make the offence more troubling while mitigating circumstances moderate the severity of the offence.

[41] Section 718.2(d) requires restraint in sentencing, acknowledging that sentences are not only intended to be punitive, but also remedial. Imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort, to be used only where no other sanction or combination of sanctions are appropriate to the offence and the offender.

Principles to Consider with Respect to a Joint Submission

[42] The Supreme Court of Canada has provided direction to lower courts in how to approach joint submissions on sentencing in the case of R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, which I am bound to follow.

[43] Joint submissions on sentence — that is, when Crown and Defence counsel agree to recommend a particular sentence to the trial judge, in exchange for the accused entering a plea of guilty — are vitally important to the well-being of the criminal justice system, as well as the justice system at large. Generally, such agreements are often approved by trial judges without any difficulty. Occasionally, however, a joint submission may appear to be unduly lenient, or perhaps unduly harsh, and trial judges are not obliged to go along with them.

[44] When considering how to evaluate the reasonableness of a joint submission, the proper legal test for trial judges to apply is the public interest test. Under the public interest test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. For joint submissions to be possible, the parties must have a high degree of confidence that they will be accepted. The public interest test, by being more stringent than the other tests proposed, best reflects the many benefits that joint submissions bring to the criminal justice system and the corresponding need for a high degree of certainty in them.

[45] Crown and Defence counsel are well placed to arrive at a joint submission that addresses the interests of both the public and the accused. Trial judges should not reject a joint submission lightly. They should only do so where the proposed sentence would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. A lower threshold than this would cast the efficacy of resolution agreements into too great a degree of uncertainty.

Reasons

[46] In light of the direction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, and considering the factors which exist in the current case involving Henok Banjaw including the Agreed Statement of Facts, the circumstances of the events leading to the death of Adrian Richardson, the role which Henok Banjaw played in those events, the range of penalties available for manslaughter, the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and the various pre-sentence credits applicable to the situation, I accept the joint submission of the parties with respect to the proposed disposition of the charge laid against and the guilty plea entered by Henok Banjaw.

[47] Having considered all of the factors set out above, including the submissions of the Defence and the Crown, along with the statutorily recognized principles of sentencing, and the rehabilitative potential for Henok Banjaw, without factoring in any credits for pre-trial custody, it is my decision that a fit sentence in all the circumstances is one of 4 years in the penitentiary.

[48] Four years is equivalent to 1,460 days. Given his pre-sentence custody, and the pre-sentence house arrest which was very restrictive, I am prepared to apply enhanced credits to his sentence in the amount of 1,157 days in Summers credits and 92 days of Downes credits, for a total credit of 1,249 days.

Final Decision

[49] Henok Banjaw, your sentence will therefore be one of 211 days imprisonment taking into account enhanced Summers and Downes credits for pre-sentence custody.

[50] Once you have served your term of imprisonment, you shall be subject to 12 months' probation with the following conditions:

a. Upon your release, you will immediately report to and remain under the supervision of a Probation Officer;

b. You will take whatever counselling, assessments or rehabilitative programs as are directed by your probation officer;

c. You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour; and

d. You shall not communicate in any way with Telique Ricketts, Aiden Collander or Jacob Green.

[51] In addition, Mr. Banjaw, you shall be subject to a lifetime prohibition with respect to the possession of any firearm, weapon, explosives or any other item referenced in section 109 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Banjaw, you shall pay the Victim Fine Surcharge of $200, and be provided with 9 months in order to pay that amount. Finally, Mr. Banjaw, you shall provide a sample of your DNA pursuant to the DNA Identification Act based upon a primary designated offence.

[52] At the request of Defence counsel, and in the absence of any position to the contrary from the Crown, I direct that the remaining 211 days of Henok Banjaw's sentence be served at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre.

The Honourable Mr. Justice S. J. Wojciechowski

Released: July 30, 2025