Scott O’Neill

Abdul Malik Kamara was convicted of possessing a loaded Glock 27 firearm with a defaced serial number while subject to two firearms prohibitions under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

This was his third conviction for possession of a loaded firearm.

The court considered extensive social context evidence, including an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment highlighting systemic anti-Black racism and trauma in Mr. Kamara’s life, as well as harsh incarceration conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The Crown sought a 9-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence recommended 6 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years, reflecting denunciation and deterrence, with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, and apportioned the sentence across multiple counts including possession while prohibited and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

The accused was found in possession of a loaded, defaced firearm while subject to two weapons prohibition orders.

He challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, alleging lack of reasonable grounds, racial profiling, lost evidence, and violations of his rights to be informed of the reason for arrest and to counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding the police had reasonable grounds, no racial profiling occurred, the lost evidence did not prejudice the defence, and his right to counsel was not violated.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty on all four counts.

The accused, charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and carrying a concealed weapon, sought to have the defence of extreme intoxication put to the jury for the general intent offences (aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon).

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on extreme intoxication, emphasizing the high evidentiary burden, including the requirement for expert evidence to establish a state akin to automatism or insanity.

Despite evidence of the accused's intoxication, the defence's toxicologist did not opine that the accused's state reached the level of extreme intoxication required by the Supreme Court.

The court ruled that the accused failed to meet the evidentiary burden, and therefore, the defence of extreme intoxication would not be put to the jury for the general intent offences.

The accused brought a pretrial motion alleging infringements of his rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) or a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).

The court found no breach of section 10(a) regarding the information provided about the charges, as the accused was sufficiently informed of his jeopardy.

Regarding section 10(b), the court found no breach despite a delay in facilitating access to duty counsel at the hospital and police station, citing reasonable security concerns at the hospital and the police's diligent efforts at the station.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court stated it would not have excluded the evidence (eyewitness statements, video) under section 24(2) as it was not 'obtained in a manner' that infringed Charter rights, nor would it have granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).