R v Sassi, 2021 ABQB 431

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Sassi, 2021 ABQB 431 Date: 20210601 Docket: 181151358Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Mohamed Ahmed Sassi Accused _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice M.H. Hollins _______________________________________________________

Restriction on Publication Preliminary Inquiry – See the Criminal Code ,

section 539 . By Court Order, this decision and the evidence given in the preliminary inquiry shall not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. 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 ordered to stand trial, after the end of the trial. Trial information in Absence of Jury – See the Criminal Code , section 648(1) .

Permission having been given to the jurors to separate, information regarding any portion of the trial at which the jury is not present shall not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: This decision is available from the court file. It may be published after the jury retires to consider its verdict. Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on July 9, 2021; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment.

Editorial Notice: The restriction on publication ended June 11, 2021 when the Crown withdrew the charges against the accused. [ 1 ] The accused, Mohamed Ahmed Sassi, is charged with manslaughter after the death of George Teo. This matter is scheduled to be tried by judge and jury beginning on June 7, 2021. [ 2 ] On May 31, 2021, I heard submissions from counsel on the formulation of various questions in the anticipated challenge for cause portion of jury selection in this matter.

As the jury selection was scheduled to begin this week, I am providing my decision on the questions that will be used in the challenge for cause now, along with very brief factual explanation of what I have decided. As the matter of jury selection for this particular matter is now moot, my original reasons for formulating the questions to prospective jurors will not be expanded upon. [ 3 ] There are two areas in which the Defence seeks to challenge prospective jurors for cause; pre-trial publicity and racial bias.

The Crown has conceded that the accused has a right to challenge prospective jurors for cause in this case but counsel have not been able to agree on a final form for the questions to be asked. Pre-Trial Publicity [ 4 ] The following are the questions requested by the Defence concerning pre-trial publicity of this case: On September 8, 2018, an incident occurred at Central Social Hall, a bar and restaurant located at #100 – 10909 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta. George Teo was transported by ambulance to the Royal Alexandra Hospital. He died on September 15, 2018.

On September 21, 2018, Mohamed Ahmed Sassi was arrested and charged with manslaughter. 1. Have you seen, heard, or read anything about this case in the newspapers, or on the radio, or on television? 2. Have you seen, heard, or read anything about this case on the Internet, including social media apps, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, or others? 3. Did you, in 2017 - 2018, attend bars located on or near Jasper Avenue, including but not limited to: Central Social Hall, Local, Urban Tavern, the Pint, Joey’s, Cactus Club, etc.? 4.

Have you overheard anyone talking about this incident, or about George Teo and/or about Mohamed Sassi specifically? 5. Have you talked to anyone about this incident, or about George Teo and/or about Mohamed Sassi specifically? 6. Have you conducted any internet searches related to this incident, or about George Teo and/or about Mohamed Sassi specifically? 7. Do you, or someone you know, have any direct or indirect connection to this event or the persons involved?

IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS: 1. From what you have seen, read, heard, or discussed, do you have a general impression of George Teo? 2. Would you describe this impression as being positive or negative? 3. From what you have seen, read, heard, or discussed, do you have a general impression of Mohamed Sassi? 4. Would you describe this impression as being positive or negative? 5. From what you have seen, read, heard, or discussed, have you formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of Mohamed Sassi? 6.

Despite anything you have seen, read, heard, or discussed, would you be able to set aside your opinion and decide this case in a fair and impartial manner using only the evidence produced at trial and the law as described to you by the judge? 7. If, after you have been selected to sit on the jury, you become aware that another member of the jury has seen, heard, or read details about this incident, about George Teo and/or about Mohamed Sassi, would you feel comfortable telling the judge? 8.

If, after you have been selected to sit on the jury, you become aware that another member of the jury has discussed this incident, and/or George Teo and/or Mohamed Sassi with members of the public, would you feel comfortable telling the judge? [ 5 ] The Crown objects to question #3 as being purely biographical and not relevant to whether a prospective juror has personal knowledge of the case from any source. I agree. [ 6 ] The Crown objects to question #7 as repetitive of the instructions to the entire array at the outset. I agree.

It appears that our jury will be the last selected on the day of jury selection and our jurors may have been sitting for quite some time before we being. Accordingly, it is my intention to review, at least briefly, some of the instructions they will have received at the outset before we commence selection of our jury. This review will include the exclusion of anyone with a connection to the case. [ 7 ] The Crown says that questions #8-11 are repetitive and unnecessary.

I agree, Question #12 accomplishes the same purpose. [ 8 ] The Crown objects to questions #14 and #15 as being too hypothetical to be helpful and unrelated to pre-trial partiality, being rather the subject of jury instructions prior to deliberations. I agree. [ 9 ] Further, I am combining some questions for the sake of efficiency; namely questions #1 and #2 and questions #4 and #5.

As a result, the questions to be posed to prospective jurors in order to challenge their partiality on the grounds of pre-trial publicity are as follows: On September 8, 2018, an incident occurred at Central Social Hall, a bar and restaurant located at #100 – 10909 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta. George Teo was transported by ambulance to the Royal Alexandra Hospital. He died on September 15, 2018. On September 21, 2018, Mohamed Ahmed Sassi was arrested and charged with manslaughter. 1.

Have you seen, heard, or read anything about this case in a newspaper, on the radio or television or on social media (including on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, or other apps or platforms)? 2. Have you conducted any internet searches related to this incident, or about George Teo and/or about Mohamed Sassi specifically? 3. Have you talked to anyone or heard anyone talking about this incident, or about George Teo or Mohamed Sassi specifically? IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS: 1.

From what you have seen, read, heard, or discussed, have you formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of Mohamed Sassi? 2. Despite anything you have seen, read, heard, or discussed, would you be able to set aside your opinion and decide this case in a fair and impartial manner using only the evidence produced at trial and the law as described to you by the judge? Racial Bias [ 10 ] The following are the questions requested by the Defence:

The accused in this case is of the Muslim faith and has a Middle Eastern background. 1. Have you ever interacted with anyone of a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background, either at work, through school or socially? 2. Based on your interactions with people of the Muslim faith and/or Middle Eastern background, have you formed an opinion that is either positive or negative? a. If yes, what is the opinion? 3. Do you think that you have a general negative view, no matter how minor, of people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background? 4.

If someone else made negative comments about people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background, would you ignore the comments or confront them? 5. Do you think people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background are predisposed to anger? 6. Do you think people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background are predisposed to violence? 7. Do you think people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background are less trustworthy than other people? 8. Do you think people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background are less likely to obey the law? IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS: 1.

Despite your impressions of people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background, would you be able to set aside your opinion, bias, or prejudice, and decide this case in a fair and impartial manner using only the evidence produced at trial and the law as described to you by the judge? 2.

If, after you have been selected to sit on the jury, you become aware that another member of the jury holds opinions that show bias or prejudice towards people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background, would you feel comfortable telling the judge? [ 11 ] The Crown objects to question #4 as being overreaching vis-a-vis the objective of selecting an impartial jury. I agree that a person’s willingness to confront another person making negative, racially-based comments may be dictated or at least influenced by any host of factors specific to the circumstances and to the people and comments involved.

It is simply too far removed from the question of impartiality to be of assistance. [ 12 ] The Crown objects to questions #5-8 [1] and suggests asking jurors whether they believe that a person of Muslim faith and/or Middle Eastern descent would be more likely to have committed the crime charged. Although I recognize that this has been a common approach in the past, I am also sympathetic to the idea that this is putting the cart before the horse to some degree.

Particularly here, where the act was assault but the charge is manslaughter, I prefer the Defence questions which use plain language, namely “violence”. [ 13 ] Having said that, I do not agree that a juror’s belief in an accused’s propensity to “anger” is helpful unless connected to a propensity to manifest anger in a harmful way.

I believe that asking about a juror’s belief in the accused’s propensity to violence as a result of his faith or race better accomplishes that task. [ 14 ] However, notwithstanding the objection of the Crown and the comments in R v McLeod , 2005 ABQB 846 at para18, I will allow a question regarding whether a juror’s assessment of the accused’s credibility would be affected by the accused’s faith or race. I realize that there are many specific jury instructions, both before and at the end of the trial, regarding the jurors’ assessment of credibility of all the witnesses.

I also realize that the accused may not testify and believe that point may need to be repeated in the context of this question. However, it does make not much sense to me to select jurors who may have this particular bias and then hope to disabuse them of it later on. [ 15 ] Lastly, the Crown objects to question #10 on the same basis as it objected to the last two questions suggested by the Defence on the pre-trial publicity grounds.

And on the same basis as I explained above, I agree and would remove that question. [ 16 ] Accordingly, the questions to be put to prospective jurors to challenge for the cause of racial bias will be as follows: The accused in this case, Mr. Mohamed Ahmed Sassi, is of Middle Eastern descent and is a member of the Muslim faith. It is important that jurors are able to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality. 1.

Based on your interactions with people of the Muslim faith and/or Middle Eastern background or simply on your upbringing, background or experiences, do y ou have a negative view, no matter how minor, of people from the Muslim faith and/or a Middle Eastern background? 2. Do you think people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background are predisposed to violence?

3. Do you think people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background are less credible than other people? IF “YES” TO ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS: 1.

Despite your impressions of people from a Muslim and/or Middle Eastern background, would you be able to set aside your opinion, bias, or prejudice, and decide this case in a fair and impartial manner using only the evidence produced at trial and the law as described to you by the judge? [ 17 ] As mentioned, my original reasons for formulating the questions to prospective jurors will not be expanded upon, as the matter of jury selection for this particular matter is now moot. Heard on the 31st day of May, 2021. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 1st day of June, 2021. M.H. Hollins J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Mr. Damian Rogers for the Crown Mr. Andrew Brian Beresh for the Defence _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Endorsement of The Honourable Madam Justice M.H. Hollins _______________________________________________________ The following changes were made to the Endorsement: 1 . In Paragraph 2, the following lines were corrected as follows: As the jury selection is was scheduled to begin this week, … I will provide my reasons for these decisions at a later date, including

addressing the case law that was provided to me by counsel. As the matter of jury selection for this particular matter is now moot, my original reasons for formulating the questions to prospective jurors will not be expanded upon . 2 . In Paragraph 17, the following line was corrected as follows: As mentioned, my reasons for deciding as I have will be released in due course my original reasons for formulating the questions to prospective jurors will not be expanded upon, as the matter of jury selection for this particular matter is now moot .