R v Ahmed, 2016 ABQB 431

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Ahmed, 2016 ABQB 431 Date: 20160805 Docket: 160748398U1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Nabeel Ahmed Applicant Restriction on Publication Judicial Interim Release – See the Criminal Code ,

section 517. By Court Order, this decision and the evidence taken, information given or representations made may not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any manner. NOTE: This decision is available from the court file. It may be published after the accused is discharged after a preliminary inquiry or, if the accused is committed to stand trial, after the end of the trial. _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

[ 1 ] Invoking a material change of circumstances, Mr. Ahmed asks for the review of denial of bail on the second ground. The new circumstances are that his family has arranged for his access to one of two private residential treatment programs which specialize in gambling addictions. Both are expensive. [ 2 ] I conclude that access to one of these programs is a material change of circumstance. I therefore undertake a fresh assessment of judicial interim release. [ 3 ] The decision of the bail judge was reasonable: Mr.

Ahmed has a bad, recent, record for similar, serious, forgery-related crimes, and for failing to abide by court orders. [ 4 ] However, it is not clear to me from the transcript that the bail judge understood that the two restitution orders included by courts as a part of earlier sentences, one for $79,000.00 and one for $309,000.00, have both been fully paid by the accused or his family. The bail judge properly took the amounts of the orders into account as showing that the underlying record relates to serious crimes.

What is not addressed by the bail judge is whether, given the fact of full restitution, it is necessary for the protection and safety of the public to keep Mr. Ahmed in custody pending his trial; where full restitution has been made, the need for protection is greatly attenuated. [ 5 ] Although Mr. Ahmed has also added an increase to the amount of cash bail he can post - from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 - the most important feature of this application is the new proposal for release which features a practical plan for dealing with Mr. Ahmed’s addiction.

There is no information before the court about any previous gambling addiction counselling/treatment programs to which Mr. Ahmed has been exposed. Our custodial institutions do not have the resources to provide this type of specialized treatment program. It is obvious that the need for public protection and safety is better served by attempting to find a way for Mr. Ahmed to manage his addiction; dealing with the underlying cause of Mr. Ahmed’s anti-social behaviour will be of long term benefit, not only to him, but also to society. Keeping Mr.

Ahmed in custody pending his trial will not help to protect the public except in the most basic, short-term way. [ 6 ] The bail judge did not deal with either the first ground or the third ground. As to the first ground, there is no evidence that Mr. Ahmed has forged passports, although, as Mr. Ahmed concedes, virtually anything could be forged. Also, Mr. Ahmed’s father lives part-time in Kuwait. Nonetheless, in all the circumstances including Mr. Ahmed’s life and support in Canada, and the proposed increase in the amount of cash bail, I conclude that there is no need to keep Mr.

Ahmed in pre-trial custody. [ 7 ] As to the third ground, as Mr. Ahmed concedes, he has been caught with forged documents in his possession. That doesn’t mean that there is no defence to the charges. Nonetheless, as of this date, in this type of forum, it can be said that the prosecution’s case is apparently strong. As to objective gravity of the offences charged, the maximum sentence which could be imposed on the most serious charges is 10 years; obviously, there is a possibility that consecutive sentences could be imposed.

However, as to the circumstances of the commission of the offences, it may be the case that no individuals, and only commercial institutions which are not particularly vulnerable – such as banks -, have been negatively affected by Mr. Ahmed. (In this context I refer to the submissions concerning the faked id not belonging to a real person.) None of the offences involve violence, including domestic violence, and no weapon was used. Nor was there any association with a criminal gang or terrorist organization. If Mr.

Ahmed were convicted of the predicate offences, in considering punishment, the court would consider the existing record as an aggravating factor, but Mr. Ahmed’s mental health might be considered to be a mitigating factor. As to the length of an actual punishment, there would likely be a step up from Mr. Ahmed’s last custodial sentence. Ultimately, as the Supreme Court of Canada reminds us in St. Cloud 2015 SCC 27 , the ultimate question is whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Having in mind the presumption of innocence along with the circumstances of the current allegations, I have concluded that pre-trial detention of Mr. Ahmed is not necessary in order to maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system. [ 8 ] Mr. Ahmed’s family has been extraordinarily, and responsibly, supportive of him. I accept that they take seriously their obligation to immediately report to the prosecution any failure of Mr. Ahmed to comply with their house rules. In the result, Mr.

Ahmed should be released on the following conditions: - he will undertake to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and appear in court as required; - he will post $10,000.00 cash bail; - he will, within 75 hours of his release from custody, report to adult probation in Edmonton; - he will be live at his parents’ residence, the address of which will be given to the prosecutor and the probation office, and he will not leave that residence except in the company of another adult member of his family, - as soon as a bed is available at either Belwood Heath or Last Door, he will travel there in the company of an adult member of his family, and remain in the residential care of that institution and agree to abide by the institution’s rules and to actively participate in their programs until the programs have been completed; - he will not have in his possession any identification, including for example but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, bank or credit or SIN or passports or driving licence, except for his personal identification papers.

Heard on the 2 nd day of August, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of August, 2016.

J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ms. K. Barker for the Crown Mr. Akram Attia, Attia Reeves for the Applicant