R. v. Dhanda, 2019 BCPC 328

Citation: R. v. Dhanda 2019 BCPC 328 Date: 20191128 File No: 100401 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SARABJIT SINGH DHANDA, AMARJIT KAUR DHANDA AND SIKANDER NARWAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. DOREY Counsel for the Crown: A. Lee Counsel for the Defendants: J. Thorhaug and R. Dhillon Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 11-13, 16, and 18, 2019 Date of Judgment: November 28, 2019 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on December 5, 2019.

The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. Background and Introduction [ 1 ] The Accused, Sarabjit Singh Dhanda, Amarjit Kaur Dhanda, and Sikander Narwal are each charged by indictment with one count of the offence of attempting to obstruct justice under s. 139(3) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] By way of background, Sarabjit and Amarjit Dhanda are brother and sister. Sikander Narwal is married to Ms. Dhanda. The

Narwal’s have four children including two daughters, S.N. and S.I.N. [3] The complainants are Ms. Dhanda’s former friend, Gurjit Gill (also known as “Robin”), her husband Parminder Dutt (alsoknown as “Puppy”), and their niece and nephew, R.D. (“R.”), and Sameer Dhanoa (“Sameer”). [4] R. lived with Mr. Dutt, Ms. Gill, and their three young children. They viewed R. “like a daughter” to them. [5] Ms. Dhanda and Ms. Gill’s children attended the same elementary school and their daughters were in the same kindergartenclass when they met.

Through their interactions at school over the years, they became good friends. [6] Ms. Dhanda was involved in a car accident and brought a claim for personal injuries. During the course of her claim, Ms.Dhanda asked Ms. Gill to use her house as a mailing address for her monthly disability benefits in relation to her claim. The reason shegave to Ms. Gill was that mail delivery to her home is delivered to a communal mailbox that is susceptible to break-ins, and she wantedto ensure receipt of her benefit cheques. Ms. Gill agreed, and her home became the mailing address in relation to Ms.

Dhanda’s personalinjury claim. [7] At some point in 2016, as Ms. Dhanda’s case was nearing trial, she had asked Ms. Gill and R. to testify as witnesses in her case.Ms. Dhanda’s reasons appeared to relate to her use of Ms. Gill’s house as her home mailing address and place of residence. Ms. Dhandaasked Ms. Gill and R. to lie at trial by testifying that Ms. Dhanda resided at Ms. Gill’s home. Both Ms. Gill and R. refused. Ms. Dhandabecame upset and angry at Ms. Gill and their friendship ended. [8] Ms. Dhanda’s upset eventually developed into animosity toward Ms. Gill and her family.

This animosity culminated in anincident shortly after midnight on May 29, 2017 at Ms. Gill and Mr. Dutt’s home in Port Coquitlam. This incident resulted in the co-accused, Sarabjit Dhanda, being arrested and charged for an assault with a weapon against the four complainants. [9] On the morning of May 29, 2017, an unidentified male attended at the Dutt home, and threatened Ms. Gill, her children, andher family with harm if she refused to withdraw her statements to police against Mr. Dhanda. [10] While Mr. Dhanda was in pre-trial custody, he made a number of telephone calls to Ms.

Dhanda between May 30, and June 1,2017. The Crown alleges these discussions involved contacting the complainants to have them recant their statements to the police on theassault charge. [11] Mr. Narwal is alleged to have made threats to Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill to recant their statements during a meeting on May 29,2017 and during follow-up conversations after that meeting. [12] The Crown further alleges that Ms. Dhanda was a direct participant in a number of interactions with one or more of thecomplainants in order to dissuade them from giving evidence against Mr.

Dhanda on the assault charge. [13] On June 8, 2017, Mr. Dutt attended at the Provincial courthouse in Port Coquitlam, and in the presence of Mr. Narwal, wroteand hand delivered a letter to the administrative Crown counsel to withdraw his statement on the charge against Mr. Dhanda. [14] By mid-June 2017, all four of the complainants recanted their statements to police. [15] On September 7, 2017, Mr. Dhanda pled guilty to the charge of assault with a weapon. Mr. Dhanda also pled guilty to thecharge of attempting to obstruct justice contrary to s. 139(3)(

a) of the Criminal Code shortly before this trial. [16] Ms. Dhanda and Mr. Narwal did not testify and did not call defence evidence. [17] Against this backdrop, I will begin my analysis with a review of the elements of the charge. I will then review the Crown’sevidence, and then I provide my analysis and findings. Elements of the Offence [18] The crime of obstruction of justice or attempting to obstruct the course of justice strikes at the core of our peaceful and lawfulsociety.

It is a serious offence and one which carries a maximum period of imprisonment of ten years where the charge is proceeded byindictment, as in the present case. [19] The provisions of the Criminal Code creating this offence are found in ss. 139(2) and (3) and provide: 139

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat thecourse of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat thecourse of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, (

a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence; (

b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or (

c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or todo or to refrain from doing anything as a juror. [20] Although framed in the language of an attempt, ss. 139(2) creates the substantive offence, the gravamen of which is the doing ofan act which has a tendency to prevent or obstruct the course of justice, and which is done for that purpose: R. v. May (1984), (ON CA), 13 C.C.C. (3d) 257 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1984] 2 SCR viii.

[21] The offence of attempt to obstruct justice can be committed in many ways. Subsection 139(3) provides a number of examples ofhow the offence created by subsection (2) may be completed in the context of a judicial proceeding, either existing or proposed. This listis not exhaustive. In the case at bar, the “gist of the offence” under s. 139(3)(

a) is the use of threats or “corrupt means” to influence awitness: R. v. Pare, 2010 ONCA 563, at para. 9. [22] The focus for this offence is on conduct that might tend to have an impact on the course of justice: R. v. David, supra, at para.23. The expression “course of justice” found in s. 139(2) has broad meaning and is not limited to judicial proceedings that are underway.The “course of justice” also encompasses conduct during a police investigation that may prevent any proceedings from taking place: see,R. v. Wijesinha, (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 422, at para. 27.

Indeed, ss. 139(3) expressly references a judicial proceedingthat “existed” or is “proposed” – in other words, a police investigation in relation to an existing or proposed proceeding. [23] This offence requires proof of specific intent – in that there must be a wilful attempt to “obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course ofjustice”. Because the offence is an inchoate crime, the Crown must prove is that the accused wilfully performed the alleged acts with theintention that the course of justice be obstructed irrespective of whether s/he is successful in doing so or not: R. v.

David, supra, at paras.25-26; citing R. v. Hearn (1989), (NL CA), 48 C.C.C. (3d) 376 (Nfld. C.A.), per Goodridge C.J.N., aff’d (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1180. [24] The Crown is required to prove both the actus reus and the mens rea elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. [25] In R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, at para. 52, Charron J. summarized the proof requirements for these elements under s. 139(2) asfollows: …To sum up, the actus reus of the offence will be established only if the act tended to defeat or obstruct the course of justice (R. v. May(1984), (ON CA), 13 C.C.C. (3d) 257 (Ont.

C.A.), per Martin J.A.; see also R. v. Hearn (1989), (NL CA), 48 C.C.C. (3d) 376 (Nfld. C.A.), per Goodridge C.J.N., aff’d, (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1180). With respect tomens rea, it is not in dispute that this is a specific intent offence (R. v. Charbonneau (1992), (QC CA), 13 C.R. (4th)191 (Que. C.A.)). The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact intend to act in a way tending toobstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. A simple error of judgment will not be enough.

An accused who acted in good faith, butwhose conduct cannot be characterized as a legitimate exercise of the discretion, has not committed the criminal offence of obstructingjustice. [emphasis added] [26] In R. v. Pare, supra, Rosenberg J.A. explained the mens rea required under the charge of s. 139(3)(a), at paras. 9-10: [9] … As is said in some of the cases, merely attempting by reasoned argument to have a witness tell the truth is not an offence.

Butattempting to persuade a witness to change their testimony, even to change the testimony to what the accused believes is the truth, is anoffence where the means of persuasion is corrupt. Offering money to a complainant in a criminal case to change her testimony is a classicexample of corrupt means. See R. v. Kotch (1990), 1990 ABCA 348 , 61 C.C.C. (3d) 132 (Alta.

C.A.) at 136. [10] In my view, the mens rea of the offence is made out where the accused intentionally offers the improper inducement for thepurpose of dissuading the witness from giving evidence, even if the accused is merely trying to persuade the witness to tell what theaccused believes is the truth. The term “wilfully” requires that the accused act intentionally – for example, that the words used beintended as a threat. More importantly, “wilfully” also requires proof that the threat or inducement was made for the prohibited purposeof dissuading the witness.

But the Crown need not prove that the accused otherwise had an improper motive. Equally, it is no defencethat the accused’s motive was to ensure that the truth was told at the judicial proceeding. For the purposes of this case it is unnecessaryto decide whether recklessness would also suffice to establish that the accused acted wilfully. See R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1979), (ON CA), 49 C.C.C. (2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.), at 379-82. [emphasis added] [27] The actus reus of the offence is the dissuasion or attempted dissuasion by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means of a personfrom giving evidence. [28] In R. v.

Reynolds, 2010 ONCA 576, the accused was charged under s. 139(3)(

a) for attempting to dissuade a witness from theprospect of embarrassment or possible criminal liability from the witness’ own fraudulent misconduct by encouraging the witness totender a false doctor’s note to excuse him from testifying at trial. [29] Blair J.A., in his dissenting opinion, at paras. 67-69, explained the actus reus element for this offence in this way: [67] Briefly put, the appellant’s act of dissuasion consisted of saying this to Mr.

Page: “You are going to be exposed to potentialembarrassment, if not criminal liability, if you testify at my preliminary hearing, and you can get out of this dilemma, and avoid yoursubpoena, by presenting a false doctor’s certificate to the court.” This is an improper, dishonest, method of dissuasion – akin to a bribeor threat – and one that is inherently corrupt because it involves deceiving the court. [68] In assessing the particularized Indictment, and the provisions of subsection 139(3)(a), the method of persuasion – or, moreaccurately, dissuasion – must be viewed as a whole.

Suggesting a facile, albeit deceitful, way of accomplishing the desired objective isjust as much a part of the “persuasion package” as providing the incentive to carry out the desired objective in the first place. Both formpart of the same chain of events designed to convince Mr. Page not to testify and thus effect the sought-after result. The suggestion ofproviding a false doctor’s note was not simply a logistical detail; it was an integral part of the overall persuasive package.

Its purposewas to delay and obstruct the course of justice. [69] To corrupt is “to induce to act dishonestly”: The Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, Third Edition, ClarendonPress, Oxford. That is precisely the means the appellant was employing to dissuade Mr. Page not to testify.

[70] The trial judge was therefore on sound ground, in my view, when he concluded that the appellant’s suggestion to Mr. Page that he avoid attending the preliminary hearing by deceiving the court through a false doctor’s certificate constituted dissuasion by “corrupt means” as contemplated in subsection 139(3)(

a) of the Code , and convicted the appellant. The Crown had proved the charge of obstruct justice as particularized in the Indictment. [emphasis added] [ 30 ] On further appeal, the Supreme Court Canada adopted Mr. Justice Blair’s reasoning, and in so doing, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction: see, 2011 SCC 19 . [ 31 ] In sum, the Crown must prove the following elements of the Indictment as charged: (

a) Between May 29, 2017 and August 9, 2017, Sikander Narwal and Amarjit Kaur Dhanda each dissuaded or attempted to dissuade any one or more of the four complainants from giving evidence in an existing or proposed judicial proceeding; and (

b) Sikander Narwal and Amarjit Kaur Dhanda each did so by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means. [ 32 ] There is no doubt on the evidence that the “proposed or existing” judicial proceeding in issue is the criminal proceeding that was brought against Sarabjit Dhanda for the assault with a weapon charge on May 29, 2017, and accordingly, I make that finding. The Crown’s Case Against the Accused [ 33 ] The Crown called 10 witnesses, including the 4 complainants, 5 police witnesses, and an expert witness who translated audio telephone calls between the three co-accused.

Additionally, the parties admitted into evidence an agreed statement of facts and Mr. Narwal’s Charter warned statement to police (video and transcript). A. The Dutt Residence [ 34 ] Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill own a house at [omitted for publication] Street, in Port Coquitlam (the “Dutt Residence”). The house is located at the corner of [omitted for publication] Street and [omitted for publication] Street in a residential subdivision. The couple lived with their three school aged daughters and Ms. Gill’s then 18 year-old niece R. The Dutt Residence also had a rental suite that was tenanted at the material time. B. Ms.

Dhanda’s ICBC Claim [ 35 ] As touched on at the outset of my decision, Ms. Dhanda and Ms. Gill were good friends. At some point in 2016, Ms. Dhanda asked Ms. Gill to lie about Ms. Dhanda’s place of residence for her upcoming personal injury trial. Ms. Gill refused. Ms. Dhanda then became very upset at Ms. Gill. Their friendship then ended and they stopped communicating with each other. [ 36 ] In her evidence in chief, Ms. Gill gave the following testimony about why she was asked to lie: Q Okay.

And do you know -- are you aware of the reason why she asked you to lie to ICBC about your address? … A She had asked if she can use my mailing address to get her papers coming in for CPP and if I can give them to her. And I said, yes. So she had used my address but to my knowledge I thought that was what it was for and that's all. But ICBC investigators started coming to our house and she thought in her opinion if she claims that she -- she told me that if she -- if she claims that she's separated from Sikander Narwal she would receive more money.

She told me to say that she had separated from Sikander Narwal due to this ICBC case and it would -- it would show something, pain and suffering, that it deteriorated their marriage. … Q Okay. Now, when you told her that you would not lie to ICBC, what happened? A She was really upset. She tried to keep convincing me to lie for her to ICBC and by that time R. had already given a statement to the ICBC investigator and Amarjit was quite upset with that and she had sent me text messages to ask R. to not say anything more and to stay out of this matter. [ 37 ] The outcome of Ms.

Dhanda’s injury claim is unclear, although Cst. Anzulovich confirmed in her testimony that it settled in August 2016. Unfortunately, the outcome of this claim led to Ms. Dhanda’s upset which developed into animosity towards Ms. Gill and her family. C. Events of May 26-27, 2017 [ 38 ] In May 2017, Ms. Gill was “in and out” of the hospital most evenings for medical treatment often returning home late. Each time, R. would drive her to and from these appointments. [ 39 ] Late the evening of May 26, 2017, R. and Ms. Gill returned home from hospital to find that their property was vandalized.

Both observed faeces smeared all over the garage door and on the garage door opener. Eggs had been thrown at the house, yard, and fence. Ms. Gill’s initial reaction this was the result of a bad prank by some teenagers. [ 40 ] Neither Ms. Gill nor R. knew the identity of the vandals. R., however, suspected it was S.N. The reason R. had this suspicion is because she had received a disturbing telephone call from S.N. that same morning.

[ 41 ] R. had been friends with S.N. until grade 9 when they had a falling out. She recognized S.N.’s voice immediately from the call. When asked to describe the telephone call, R. explained during her evidence in chief: Q All right. And so when you received this phone call, first off, did you recognize the voice that was on the other side? A I did once they spoke. Q Okay. And who did you believe it to be? A S.N. Q And had you spoken to S.N. on the phone prior to May of 2017? A When we were friends, yes, and I -- from previous phone calls from her that were just to harass me. Q Okay.

Now, what did this person say to you? A I answered and the person didn't respond for a few words and I -- I asked again and they did not respond again and they said, you did not testify for my mom. Watch your back. [ 42 ] Afterwards, R. told Ms. Gill about the telephone call. Ms. Gill told her to ignore it, which she tried to do until their home was vandalised. [ 43 ] After entering the home, Ms. Gill woke Mr. Dutt up and told him about the vandalism. They decided to deal with the clean-up in the morning. [ 44 ] The next morning there was no heat in the home. Mr.

Dutt went to investigate and discovered that an exterior valve for the gas line into their home was turned off. This is why they were without heat. In his testimony, Mr. Dutt stated that a “special tool” was needed to turn off the gas. He also discovered that wires to an old BC telephone power box on the property had also been cut. [ 45 ] These discoveries caused both Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill concern that their home might be a target for further property damage. [ 46 ] That same morning Ms.

Gill saw from her upstairs living room front window S.I.N. driving a black Mitsubishi Lancer northbound along [omitted for publication] Street. Ms. Gill found this unusual because the Narwal’s did not live in her neighbourhood. Ms. Gill surmised that S.I.N. may have had something to do with the vandalism the previous evening and went outside to film her on her smartphone as S.I.N. drove by in the other direction. [ 47 ] Ms. Gill went back inside. A few minutes later, she saw a red Volkswagen Jetta driving slowly along [omitted for publication] Street in front of her house. She identified the driver as S.N.

She decided to keep a watch from her living room and confirmed in her testimony that she saw both S.I.N. and S.N. driving by her home along [omitted for publication] Street multiple times throughout the day. [ 48 ] R. also saw Ms. Dhanda driving a blue Jetta in the vicinity of [omitted for publication] Street and [omitted for publication] Street. She testified that she saw the two Jetta’s and the Lancer driving back and forth in front of her home multiple times that day. D. The May 29, 2017 Incident [ 49 ] On May 28 th , the Dutt’s continued to keep a watch on their property.

That evening, Sameer Dhanoa came over to help. Mr. Dutt kept a lookout outside from his parked truck. He wanted to catch the person responsible for the vandalism in the act. Ms. Gill, R., and Sameer maintained their lookout from the front living room window. [ 50 ] During the course of the evening, R., Ms. Gill, and Mr. Dutt each saw a white truck and a black Lexus driving by their residence along [omitted for publication] Street. [ 51 ] Shortly after 12:30 a.m. the next morning (May 29 th ), Sarabjit Dhanda entered the property and was walking up the front lawn towards house.

He carried a bag in one hand and a knife in the other hand. At this point in time, Mr. Dutt was in the driver's seat of his truck, which was parked in the driveway adjacent to the front lawn. [ 52 ] Ms. Gill, who was in the living room, saw Mr. Dhanda through the window walking up the front lawn with a knife in his hand. She knew from her friendship with Ms. Dhanda that Sarabjit Dhanda was her brother and immediately recognized him. Ms. Gill yelled out the open window to her husband that the male was Mr.

Dhanda and then telephoned the police. [ 53 ] R. and Sameer were also present in the living room and they, too, saw Mr. Dhanda walking on the front lawn carrying a knife. [ 54 ] In her evidence in chief, Ms. Gill testified that she was “very scared, shooken (sic) up…” She also testified that she knew from Ms. Dhanda that Mr. Dhanda had a criminal past which compounded her fears that evening. [ 55 ] Upon hearing Ms. Gill yelling, Mr. Dhanda walked away from the residence. Mr. Dutt initially got out of his truck and followed Mr. Dhanda on foot but then returned to his truck to follow him. He saw Mr.

Dhanda getting into the passenger seat of a white truck that was being driven by an unknown male. Mr. Dutt continued to follow Mr. Dhanda in his vehicle. [ 56 ] In the meantime, Sameer used his own vehicle to follow Mr. Dhanda. At one point, the white truck that Mr. Dhanda was riding in stopped. Mr. Dhanda exited the truck and brandished the knife and a hammer towards Sameer and Mr. Dutt, who were in their respective vehicles which were stopped a few feet away from Mr. Dhanda's truck. [ 57 ] Mr. Dutt and Sameer drove away. The white truck then followed Mr. Dutt's vehicle. Mr. Dutt at one point stopped the vehicle

and attempted to turn. Mr. Dhanda's vehicle also stopped about 30 feet away from Mr. Dutt's vehicle. Mr. Dhanda exited the vehicle with a hammer and began to approach Mr. Dutt's vehicle. Mr. Dutt backed up over a median and drove away. [ 58 ] Ms. Gill saw the white truck return her street while she was on the telephone with the police. She saw Mr. Dhanda inside the vehicle pointing his finger at her. She then saw the white truck proceed northbound on [omitted for publication] Road.

She also saw a black Lexus parked in front of her home during these events. [ 59 ] The Coquitlam RCMP were dispatched and located the white truck nearby. A traffic stop was initiated at 12:55 a.m. Mr. Dhanda was driving the truck and was the sole occupant. In a search incidental to arrest, the police located two hammers in plain view inside the white truck. [ 60 ] As a result of the incident, Mr. Dhanda was arrested for assault with a weapon and taken to North Fraser Pretrial Centre (“NFPTC”). [ 61 ] The police began their investigation and attended the Dutt Residence. Cst.

Dick took audio statements from each of the four complainants with regard to the incident involving Mr. Dhanda. [ 62 ] After the police left their residence, Mr. Dutt took the children to stay with a relative. Ms. Gill and R. remained behind to keep a watch on the property. Even though they were both scared, Ms. Gill and R. stayed behind because they did not think it was safe to leave the tenants alone without someone keeping a watch given what had transpired that evening. E. The Morning of May 29, 2017 [ 63 ] The next morning, Ms. Gill and R. met with Victim Services at the Coquitlam RCMP detachment.

After returning from the detachment and as they approached their street, they saw S.I.N. driving her black Lancer coming off of [omitted for publication] Street and onto [omitted for publication] Street. [ 64 ] R. was driving and decided to follow the Lancer for a short distance so Ms. Gill could take video footage of the Lancer. After returning home, Ms. Gill telephoned the police to advise she had taken video footage of S.I.N. driving in her neighbourhood. [ 65 ] Shortly after calling the police, Ms. Gill went downstairs to answer a knock on the front door.

Thinking it was the police coming by to pick up the video footage, she answered the door. Ms. Gill saw a short male in his 30’s to 40’s, with bald patches on his head and stubble on his face, dressed in a hoody with one hand in his pocket standing at the entrance. [ 66 ] She had a brief exchange with the man in which he demanded that she “take back the statements”. Ms. Gill was “really scared” during this interaction. She testified: Q Okay. And what -- so what happened when you opened the door and you saw this male at the door? A I opened the door. I don't remember too much, I was -- got really scared.

He had told me to -- everything that happened last night, take it back. Do not talk to the police. They -- he mentioned something about bullets. He mentioned my children. He knew I had three 'cause he said three. He mentioned their school and I asked who he was. He told me it didn't matter and he asked, where are the police now? Q All right. And did you see -- what was he doing with his hands when he was at the door? A One hand was out of his jacket, one hand was inside his jacket pocket. It -- to me it seemed like -- I never saw a weapon but it seemed like there was a gun.

He was shuffling it, like, he was shuffling a movement in his pocket. [ 67 ] R. was upstairs in the living room. She overheard this exchange but did not see the unknown male. Ms. Gill went upstairs to the living room to comfort R. whom she heard crying. Ms. Gill then telephoned Mr. Dutt who told her not to call the police and that he would come home. [ 68 ] Mr. Dutt described Ms. Gill’s demeanour during the telephone call in his testimony as “frightened” and “frantic”. [ 69 ] A short time later, a police officer arrived at the Dutt Residence to pick-up the video footage. Ms.

Gill made no mention of her interaction with the unknown male, because she was scared, and more importantly, because her family had been threatened. [ 70 ] After the call with Ms. Gill, Mr. Dutt telephoned Sikander Narwal. Mr. Dutt knew Mr. Narwal through his wife’s friendship with Ms. Dhanda. He knew through that friendship that Mr. Dhanda was Mr. Narwal’s brother-in-law. Thus, he thought Mr. Narwal might be able to help and this is why he contacted Mr. Narwal. [ 71 ] He told Mr. Narwal during this call what had happened the night before with Sarbjit Dhanda and then he arranged a meeting with Mr.

Narwal. [ 72 ] By the time Mr. Dutt arrived back at the residence, R. had gone to work. F. Meeting with Sikander Narwal [ 73 ] Later that afternoon, Mr. Dutt picked-up Mr. Narwal at his home and brought him back to the Dutt Residence. Mr. Narwal, Mr. Dutt, and Ms. Gill met at the dining room table. It was a long meeting lasting a couple of hours. The meeting was conducted in Punjabi. [ 74 ] Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill recounted the events of the past few days, including the vandalism to their home, the multiple cars driving back and forth along their street, the incident with Mr.

Dhanda entering their property carrying a knife, and Ms. Gill’s encounter with the unknown male. Based on Mr. Narwal’s comments, Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill quickly formed the impression that Mr. Narwal was

aware of these events, that they were connected to Ms. Dhanda’s ICBC case, that he was in control of the situation, and he could make “this all stop”. [ 75 ] Ms. Gill testified in chief: Q -- and then? A And then he had told us, if you take back your statement, I will make this all stop. And he also asked me why I did not help his wife out with the ICBC case and he got upset at me because -- well, he -- it seemed like he was upset that I mentioned the ICBC case to the police because said, why would you even talk about that?

You're providing the police too much information. [ 76 ] During cross examination she also testified: Q Okay. And the other note that I made when you were answering my friend's question, it was my belief that he had some control over the situation. A I believed he had full control, that's why -- Q Full control? A -- he was called. I believe Sikander had control. Q Okay. And why did you believe that? A Because he was telling us that he can -- he'll stop everything. Q Okay. A He seemed like he had a lot of knowledge of what happened. It seemed like he knew the guy came there.

It -- the way he didn't deny any guy, he didn't say no. He knew about the vehicles that were driving around. He agreed to everything. [ 77 ] Ms. Gill told Mr. Narwal about the vandalism and identified his daughters as possibly being involved. Mr. Narwal dismissed the suggestion and instead alleged that R. and Sameer had been involved in a similar incident of vandalism on his property, which allegations she denied. [ 78 ] During the meeting, Mr. Gill repeated again that “it’s only gonna get worse if we don’t take back our statements”. Ms.

Gill testified in chief: Q Now, when he said, "it's only gonna get worse if we don't take back our statements", what statements do you think that he was referring to? A Oh, he told us about the statements that we gave to the police officers that were there, about Sarabjit Dhanda. He told me that Sarabjit Dhanda is -- knows the criminal system. He's been in and out of jail multiple times. … Q I'm just going to stop you right there. Okay. And thank you, please continue from there? A He had said, how long are the police gonna protect you?

He's -- he goes, you guys are complaining about somebody at your house, the cars driving up and down. He goes, what did the police do for you? He said, he will make it stop if we take back our statements and say that we never saw anybody, we were mistaken. [ 79 ] Mr. Narwal also told them about Mr. Dhanda’s criminal history. Mr. Dutt testified that he felt that this information was conveyed to make them feel more “threatened” so they would agree to retract their statements to police on Mr. Dhanda’s assault charge. This was apparent from the following exchange during Mr. Dutt’s evidence in chief: Q And so Mr.

Narwal had told you that Sarabjit Dhanda had spent time in prison? A Yeah, and he's been in and out of prison so many times. And he's got friends. He literally glorified his career as a criminal. Q Okay. And how did you take that information? What were you feeling when this information was being given to you? A I was threatened. …. Q Okay. All right. And what -- did you reach any conclusions at the end of that meeting? A Retract my statements, what we gave to police. Q All right. And why did you come to that conclusion after this meeting? A I'm sorry? Q Why did you come to that conclusion after this meeting?

A Well, he said he knew about everything and he could make it all stop. If we didn't, it would be out of his hands. [ 80 ] The meeting ended with Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill agreeing to retract their statements. Mr. Narwal told them that “… that’s the right choice to make,” adding that he would “stop all the cars and nobody will show up at our property.” [ 81 ] When the meeting ended Ms. Gill was relieved, but still felt threatened by the comments made by Mr. Narwal about Mr. Dhanda during the meeting. However, she felt that Mr.

Narwal was in charge and in a position to solve the situation if they recanted their statements to the police. She testified during cross: Q Okay. And you said that the tone of that meeting was pretty normal, no loud words spoken, no veiled threats of any type? A Just the only way I can say I felt threatened, it wasn't his tone. It was just the fact when he said he will only make this stop if we take back our statements. He left me with no choice but to tell the police I'm not gonna get involved in this case. I did not have a choice. [ 82 ] After the meeting concluded, Mr. Dutt drove Mr.

Narwal home. [ 83 ] In his statement to police, Mr. Narwal admits the fact that a meeting took place with Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill at their home on May 29 th but denies having threatened them. [ 84 ] Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill met with R. after she returned home from work and they all agreed to retract their statements made to the police in light of what transpired at the meeting with Mr. Narwal. G. Post-Meeting Efforts [ 85 ] Just after midnight on May 30 th , Ms. Gill telephoned Cst. Dick to inform him that she no longer wanted the proceed with the assault charge against Mr. Dhanda. (Cst.

Dick was on duty and had provided his work cellular telephone number to Ms. Gill the night before.) [ 86 ] Cst. Dick told Ms. Gill that charges were forwarded to the Crown for approval and that the best thing for her to do would be to speak to Cst. Gluppe, the lead investigator on the matter, but that he was unavailable that evening to speak to her, and then would be away until June 4 th . [ 87 ] About fifteen minutes later, Ms. Gill and Mr. Dutt initiated a conference call to Cst. Dick. They told Cst. Dick that: they no longer wished to pursue charges against Mr.

Dhanda; they no longer wanted to attend court to testify; and they wanted to recant their statements. Cst. Dick testified that he detected a sense of urgency in their voices during the call. [ 88 ] Mr. Dutt told Mr. Narwal about their efforts with the police and advised that they were referred to the lead investigating officer, Cst. Gluppe, who was away. He explained to Mr. Narwal that they had to wait until he returned before they could do anything. [ 89 ] Mr. Narwal was displeased with the delay. He told Ms. Gill during a telephone call that people (referring to Mr.

Dhanda) were “getting upset” and that “[i]f we’re not going to listen to him he’s not responsible for our safety, then it’s out of his hands”. (Ms. Gill’s testimony on this point was not challenged during cross-examination.) [ 90 ] Cst. Gluppe was away until June 4 th and he contacted Mr. Dutt that same day. Cst. Gluppe informed Mr. Dutt that the police report to Crown counsel recommending charges against Mr. Dhanda had already been forwarded to the Crown and the “ball” was in the “hands of Crown counsel” as to whether the charges would proceed. [ 91 ] On receiving this advice, Mr. Dutt told Mr.

Narwal in telephone call that he would “go the extra mile” by coming to court on Mr. Dhanda’s next court date. Mr. Dutt testified in chief as follows: Q And what, if anything, do you remember about Mr. Narwal's response when you were giving the information about going to the Crown and going to Cst. Gluppe? A He kept saying you could give it to any police officer. And at one point, I said it's -- I can't do anything about it; it's in the court. And at one point, I told him I'll go the extra mile. I'll go to the court when the guy's date is. Q And when you say the guy's date, what do you mean by that?

A Sarabjit Dhanda's. He had told me that he -- he's got a date -- court date. Q And who told you that Sarabjit Dhanda had a court date? A Sikander. We exchanged a few phone calls. Q Okay. And now, did you then go to court -- A Yes. [ 92 ] On June 8, 2017, Mr. Dhanda had a scheduled court appearance at the Provincial Court in Port Coquitlam. [ 93 ] Mr. Narwal telephoned Mr. Dutt the day before to remind Mr. Dutt about Mr. Dhanda’s court appearance. [ 94 ] According to Mr. Narwal’s cell phone records, admitted in evidence, he placed 6 calls from his cellular telephone on June 8 th to Mr.

Dutt between the hours of 10:06 am and 2:02 pm. He also made three phone calls to Ms. Dhanda during that same time interval.

[ 95 ] That day, Mr. Dutt met up with Mr. Narwal at the courthouse. Ms. Dhanda was at the courthouse too, but remained in a courtroom waiting for Mr. Dhanda’s court matter to be called. [ 96 ] Mr. Dutt went to the Crown Counsel office at the courthouse to speak to the administrative Crown. When advised that he was unable to meet with him, he decided to write a note. Mr. Dutt explained during his evidence in chief that the purpose of the note was to convey that: A I didn't want to be a witness to that guy's arrest. I didn't want anything to do with that anymore and I was taking back my testimony. [ 97 ] Mr.

Dutt sat outside the Crown counsel office in the hallway. Mr. Narwal sat beside Mr. Dutt. Mr. Dutt discussed the content of the note with Mr. Narwal as he wrote his note. [ 98 ] Mr. Dutt testified in chief: Q All right. And who told you to write it? A We kind of discussed it. Sikander told me to write it. We couldn't -- we waited there -- we -- for Crown counsel and Crown counsel wouldn't -- he was busy so I just wrote the note. I had to go and I left it with the Crown counsel office. Q Okay. Now, why did you decide to write that letter and leave it with the Crown?

A 'Cause he -- with the phone calls that we had, he kind of didn't believe me that I had told the police that we want to retract our statements. Q And when you say he didn't believe me that had told -- that I had told the police -- A Sikander. [ 99 ] The note stated: I, Parminder Dutt, am giving a written statement in regards to police file No.1715923. I have no interest in pursuing any matter in regards to that file. As far as I recall I had no altercation with the accused relating to this file. [ 100 ] Mr. Dutt signed, dated, and dropped off his note to the Crown counsel office and then told Mr.

Narwal “to leave us alone. I’ve done my part; you do yours.” [ 101 ] Mr. Dutt was not challenged on the note itself nor was he significantly challenged on the circumstances surrounding the note. [ 102 ] The morning of June 11, 2017, Cst. Gluppe attended at the Dutt Street Residence. He met separately with Mr. Dutt, Ms. Gill, and R., and took an audio statement from them in which they each retracted their May 29th statements. [ 103 ] After providing his statement to Cst. Gluppe, Mr. Dutt showed him the security cameras he had installed in the home after the May 29 th incident. [ 104 ] Ms. Gill told Cst.

Gluppe after she gave her statement, that she wanted to speak to him “off the record” (which Cst. Gluppe interpreted to mean without the audio recording). She told Cst. Gluppe about the unknown male who came to her home and had threatened her family, and told him why she felt she had to retract her statement “cause my family’s threatened” and that she felt this was “really wrong”. During cross examination, Cst. Gluppe described Ms. Gill as visibly upset and crying when she described these events to him. [ 105 ] Late that afternoon, Mr. Dutt took Sameer to the Coquitlam RCMP Detachment. Sameer met with Cst.

Anzoulovich and he gave an audio/video statement retracting his May 29 th statement to police. [ 106 ] On June 12th, Ms. Gill met with Cst. Anzoulovich at the Coquitlam Detachment. Ms. Gill insisted that the meeting not be recorded. They met for over an hour. Cst. Anzoulovich took handwritten notes. In cross-examination, she described Ms. Gill’s demeanour during that meeting as “seeming concerned”. [ 107 ] Counsel for Mr. Narwal sought to cross-examine Cst. Anzoulovich on her notes of the statements made by Ms. Gill during their meeting.

Crown counsel objected to this line of question on the basis that counsel did not put those statements to Ms. Gill during her cross-examination. I considered submissions of the parties and allowed the objection ruling that those statements could not be relied upon by Mr. Narwal for their truth in light of the rule in Brown v. Dunne . I thus place little, if any, weight on Cst. Anzoulovich’s testimony in relation to her handwritten notes from this meeting as the notes are hearsay. H. Further Interactions Involving the Accused [ 108 ] Contrary to what Mr.

Narwal had promised, cars continued to drive up and down [omitted for publication] and [omitted for publication] Streets at all times of the day until early August 2017, when this activity halted. [ 109 ] In that same period, Mr. Narwal was seen by Ms. Gill, Mr. Dutt, and R. driving his dump truck along their street. They each continued to see S.I.N. and S.N. driving their vehicles along their street. R. saw Ms. Dhanda driving her Jetta in the area of [omitted for publication] Street and [omitted for publication] Street. [ 110 ] After the May 29 th incident, R. had an encounter with Ms.

Dhanda when she and her cousin were about to go on a run in her

neighbourhood. As they were crossing a pedestrian cross-walk, Ms. Dhanda approached them in her Jetta. She stopped just behind the cross-walk and revved her engine. This scared R. and her cousin. Although she could not recall the date of this incident, R. told Cst. Gluppe about it at a meeting in their home on August 8, 2017. [ 111 ] Ms. Dhanda was also seen by Ms. Gill on one occasion standing on her street outside her home, swearing loudly “using the worst profanity” that “could ever be heard”.

She could not remember the date but confirmed this encounter happened after the May 29 th incident. [ 112 ] Following the swearing incident, and on a school day, Ms. Dhanda came up to the passenger side of Ms. Gill’s vehicle where she was waiting in the school parking lot to pick-up her son, and spat in Ms. Gill’s face. [ 113 ] After the swearing and spitting incidents, Ms. Gill stopped attending at the school to pick-up her children, and taking her daughters to sports activities to avoid contact with Ms. Dhanda.

They even changed schools for their youngest son to minimize contact with the Narwal family. [ 114 ] Mr. Dutt, Ms. Gill, and R. each reported seeing Ms. Dhanda watching their daughter/cousin’s soccer practice at Gates Park, on two, possibly three separate occasions. She was seen standing near her car in the parking lot watching the practice. She did not have child involved in the soccer practice and the complainants found this behaviour unusual and unsettling. Ms. Gill testified she thought this encounter at Gates Park occurred in August 2017 and it made her feel “scared”. I.

Telephone Calls Between the Accused [ 115 ] Mr. Dhanda was held in custody at NFPTC pending bail from May 29, 2017 until September 7, 2017. While in custody, Mr. Dhanda made several telephone calls between the period May 30, 2017 and June 10, 2017. [ 116 ] The police obtained a production order for all telephone calls, other than privileged calls, made by Mr. Dhanda between May 30, 2017 and June 1, 2017. There were eight such recordings obtained by police as a result of the production order. These phone calls were recorded in their entirety, and the audio recordings are in a mix of Punjabi and English.

The identity of the parties on the telephone calls and the telephone calls themselves were admitted. [ 117 ] The Crown called Mr. Kulvinder Kular as their proposed expert. Mr. Kular prepared the written translations of the audio recordings from Punjabi into English. [ 118 ] After a voir dire conducted on Mr. Kular’s qualifications, I ruled that Mr.

Kular was qualified to provide opinion evidence in relation to his translations of the audio recordings from Punjabi into English. [ 119 ] The key recordings are Recording #2, which took place on May 30, 2017 starting at 6:52 pm, and Recording #6, which took place on May 31, 2017 starting at 7:20 p.m. [ 120 ] The key passages from these recordings are: [ 121 ] Recording #2, was initiated by Mr. Dhanda (“S” on all of the transcripts) to Ms. Dhanda (“A” on all of the transcripts), and the call lasted for 21 minutes and 36 seconds. [ 122 ] At p. 2 of this transcript, Ms.

Dhanda stated that she told duty counsel that Mr. Dutt was “retracting his statement”. The audio portion spoken of this statement was in English and was transcribed by Mr. Kular. [ 123 ] At p. 2, Ms. Dhanda further stated to her brother: A: …, [S]secondly, um, um whatever withdrawing complaint, um whatever, right? So Sikander and the fucking Parminder Dutt are gone to do that right now at the police station, okay. [ 124 ] The audio portion of this passage was in English and was transcribed by Mr. Kular. [ 125 ] From a mix of English and Punjabi, Mr. Kular interpreted another exchange between Mr. Dhanda and Ms.

Dhanda and then translated the Punjabi into English, found at pages 4-5 of the transcript: S: You have a recording of them? A: I have a recording of the guy saying that he’s going to go to the police station and retract it. But unfortunately, in the recording, he said that he has seen something in your hand … (at p. 4) … A: Right. I have been to police station. Those sister-fuckers say that officer, right? S: Yes. A: He is off shift, he will be back on Saturday. Nobody else can search their case files only he can search. Right? And I was like that is fucking bullshit.

My brother is sitting innocently in jail. (at p. 5) [ 126 ] During cross-examination, Mr. Kular agreed with counsel for Mr. Narwal that the words “only he can search” had been omitted from his written translation, and he adopted them in his testimony. (These words are italicized in the above passage.) [ 127 ] At 13 minutes and 44 seconds of this recording, Mr. Narwal (“N” on the transcripts) joined in on the call.

[ 128 ] At p. 7 of this transcript, Mr. Kular interpreted the following exchange between Mr. Dhanda, Mr. Narwal, and Ms. Dhanda from the audio recording which was in a mix of Punjabi and English. Mr. Kular then translated his Punjabi

interpretation into English as follows: A: He has not been to the police station yet? You too were to go with him? N: He, the police guy said I’ll call home, he said I will give the statement again. A: What is he going to say to him? N: This, that he would like to drop it. A: Drop it? Told him that he was mistaken, that it was someone else not him. He was mistaken. Okay? Call him right away and tell him. S: Yes, tell him it was not him, we did not say his name that time, otherwise they won’t release me. A: Yes. S: Right? They want. A: Say this is that it was not him. N: Okay. [ 129 ] At p. 9 of this transcript, Mr. Kular provided the following

interpretation of an audio recording of an exchange between Mr. Dhanda and Mr. Narwal from a mix of Punjabi and English, which he then translated into English: S: Yes, how are you brother . Tell them for once that we are not going to spare them if they cause any problem. I N: What? S: Tell them that those sister fuckers for once that, if there’s any problems, they won’t be spared. N: Okay, okay, okay, okay. [ 130 ] During cross-examination, Mr. Kular adopted the suggestion of counsel for Mr.

Narwal to include the words “brother” and “them” and “that” in his written translation into English (which I have italicized in the above passage). [ 131 ] At p. 11 of this transcript, Mr. Kular interprets the audio recording from a mix of Punjabi and English, into English where Mr. Dhanda is telling Ms. Dhanda that “if these people can come to June 8 to the court hearing, that would be even better too”. Ms. Dhanda replies that she will “talk to Sikander”. [ 132 ] Recording #6, was initiated by Mr. Dhanda to Ms. Dhanda and lasted 20 minutes and 7 seconds. [ 133 ] On p. 1 of this transcript, Mr.

Kular transcribes the audio recording of Ms. Dhanda saying to her brother in English: S: Yes A: So, I guess you talked to somebody and, uh, that Puppy bastard went in to say, hey, I’m withdrawing my case. Right”. And: S: Yes. A: He can’t just say, I’m withdrawing the case. He has to give a reason, stuff like that. He doesn’t want to implicate himself. He just says, he wants to withdraw the case. [ 134 ] The defence did not lead expert evidence. Instead, counsel for Mr. Narwal tested Mr. Kular on his opinion, and in particular, Mr. Kular’s

interpretation of some of common Punjabi expressions, through questioning and through the replaying of certain segments of the audio portion of the calls. While Mr. Kular adopted some minor changes to his

interpretations as suggested to him by defence counsel, he declined to adopt the

interpretation of certain colloquialisms suggested by counsel, instead preferring his own

interpretation. [ 135 ] For example, the

interpretation from Recording #2, at p. 9 (set out above) was challenged by counsel for Mr. Narwal during cross-examination. The segment of the audio recording that corresponded to this translation was replayed in Court. Defence counsel suggested to Mr. Kular that the phrase “legs would go up” (literally translated from Punjabi into English) was heard on the audio recording but was omitted from Mr. Kular’s English translation. Mr. Kular agreed. [ 136 ] During questioning, defence counsel suggested to Mr.

Kular that the meaning of the passage would change had that expression been included in the English transcript and that it ought to have been included, because it was a common expression or colloquialism used in Punjabi. [ 137 ] In response to these questions, Mr. Kular agreed that the meaning of the passage would change if those words were included, but disagreed with defence counsel that the literal meaning of that phrase “legs would go up” should have been included in the English translation. Mr.

Kular opined that the translation he included in English best fit the context of that audio portion of the conversation he

heard in Punjabi, and for this reason he omitted this phrase in the English translation. [ 138 ] Having heard and reviewed the audio and written transcripts, and on a close consideration of Mr. Kular’s testimony, I am satisfied that Mr. Kular performed a careful and thorough review of the audio transcripts which he translated from Punjabi into English. I am also satisfied that Mr. Kular formed an opinion on the meaning of the Punjabi words and expressions used by the accused during these audio recordings, and that such

interpretations were within the scope of his expertise. Accordingly, I accept the accuracy of the translations as opined by Mr. Kular and I find as a fact that the accused made these statements as transcribed by Mr. Kular on the dates and times indicated. Discussion [ 139 ] I will now consider whether the Crown has proven the actus reus and mens rea for this offence. [ 140 ] I find on the totality of the evidence that the Narwal family developed animosity towards the Dutt family. The source of this animosity was Ms. Gill’s refusal to lie in connection with Ms. Dhanda’s ICBC claim.

Regardless of the reasons for the “animosity”, it existed. [ 141 ] The animosity harboured by the Narwal family against the Dutt family took a terrible turn in late May 2017, when Mr. Dhanda entered their property after midnight on May 29, 2017, with a weapon. [ 142 ] I found each of the complainants to be forthright in their testimony, each describing the key events in detail. While there were some inconsistencies in Ms.

Gill and R.’s testimony, in particular, as to the date and timing of certain events, it is my opinion that these inconsistencies were minor and did not impact the overall reliability of their testimony in the key areas. [ 143 ] Each complainant, particularly Ms. Gill, and Mr. Dutt, remained steadfast in their testimony that they were fearful of reprisals if they did not recant their statements to police on Mr. Dhanda’s assault charge. It was that fear that motivated them to recant. [ 144 ] I accept Mr. Dutt’s testimony, and further find, that prior to the May 29 th meeting, Mr.

Narwal was well aware of the vandalism to the Dutt’s home. Mr. Narwal knew his daughters had been driving back and forth around their residence following the vandalism, and that he was aware that an unknown male threatened Ms. Dutt at her home. In light of Mr. Narwal’s admissions at this meeting, there is no question in my mind that these events were linked to the animosity toward Ms. Gill that developed out of Ms. Dhanda’s ICBC claim. [ 145 ] Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill came to the meeting upset and afraid. They believed Mr. Narwal was in control of the situation and that he could make the harassment stop. Mr.

Narwal instead compounded Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill’s fears by raising Mr. Dhanda’s criminal history. I find that Mr. Narwal did so with the intent to convey to them that the threat of harm was real. [ 146 ] This threat was particularly evident in Ms. Gill’s evidence in chief when she described why she continued to feel threatened: A. I felt that Sikander was helping solve the situation in the way that he's gonna stop people from coming to our house, what we're afraid of. He's gonna stop these cars from driving around if we listen to what he says.

And since we were listening to what he said, that he's gonna stop all this for us 'cause he has control over this. I didn't physically feel threatened by him in any sort of way, that he's gonna punch me or hurt me or hurt Parminder at that time but I did feel that I have no choice left. I cannot cooperate with the police at this point because he's leaving me no choice to. Either I cooperate with the police and hurt my family or I listen to him and save my family.

He told me many things as well about Sarabjit Dhanda, how dangerous he is and about his criminal past. … … We have children in the house and his response to that was, you need to just cooperate and work with me. And he goes, I will make sure none of that happens and I -- when I asked about Sarabjit with the knife, he said, oh, Sarabjit wouldn't come with a knife, he'd come with a gun. [ 147 ] Ms. Gill’s testimony on these areas was unchallenged in cross-examination. [ 148 ] Not only did Mr.

Narwal threaten the complainants at the May 29 th meeting, he participated in a continued campaign of harassment and intimidation to ensure that they followed through with their promise to recant their statements. [ 149 ] First, Mr. Narwal did not make the cars driving around the Dutt residence “stop”. Indeed, that activity continued until August --- even after the complainants retracted their statements in mid-June. [ 150 ] Second, Mr. Narwal maintained the threat of harm by telling Mr.

Dutt in follow-up telephone calls that “it’s only gonna get worse” if they do not take back their statements when the complainants did not act quickly enough with the police to retract their statements. [ 151 ] Third, Mr. Narwal implemented Mr. Dhanda’s direction during the May 30 th telephone call from NFPTC to “tell them for once that, if there’s any problems they won’t be spared.” Mr. Narwal indeed conveyed words to this effect to Mr. Dutt during one of their follow-up conversations as Mr. Dutt described in his testimony. [ 152 ] Mr.

Narwal’s post-meeting conversations compounded the complainants’ fears, prompting Mr. Dutt to “go the extra mile” by going to court to retract his statement at Mr. Dhanda’s next court date. [ 153 ] Fourth, Mr. Narwal contacted Mr. Dutt multiple times on June 8 th to ensure he would attend court that day. He sat beside Mr. Dutt as he wrote his note to the administrative Crown and he counselled Mr. Dutt on what needed to be said in the note. [ 154 ] Mr. Dutt was not challenged in cross-examination on these areas of his testimony.

[ 155 ] One of the main area canvassed with Mr. Dutt in cross-examination involved the assertion there was an escalating dispute between the young adults that involved vandalism to the homes of both families. It was suggested to Mr. Dutt during cross-examination that Mr. Narwal performed the role of peacemaker to resolve this dispute at the May 29 th meeting, the upshot of which resulted in the complainants’ decision, on their own initiative, to recant their statements. [ 156 ] This suggestion was rejected by Mr. Dutt during cross-examination. He testified: Q Mr.

Dutt, I suggest that you called Sikander Narwal, you picked him up to resolve all escalating disputes between families. Is it right? A What kind of dispute are you talking? Q All allegations against each other, vandalism at your house and vandalism at his house. A Well, I didn't know anything about a vandalism at his house 'til he told me. I didn't want no random male coming to my house. I didn't want his brother-in-law with a knife in my yard. And I didn't want his daughters driving up and down the street.

That's what I wanted to talk to him about. [ 157 ] Even if there was an escalating feud between the young adult children of the two families, that would not legitimize nor justify Mr. Narwal’s promises at that meeting to put a “stop” to “everything”. [ 158 ] I find that Mr. Narwal concocted the story of an “escalating dispute” between the young adults of the two families in an attempt to deflect the very real concerns expressed to him at the meeting by Ms. Gill and Ms.

Dutt, namely, that his daughters were possibly involved in the vandalism of their home. [ 159 ] On a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find that Mr. Narwal threatened Mr. Dutt and Ms. Gill at the meeting on May 29 th . I further find that these threats were intended by Mr. Narwal to induce the complainants to recant their statements to the police so the assault charge against Mr. Dhanda would be withdrawn. [ 160 ] Mr.

Narwal’s offer to make “everything” stop was the “corrupt” means he further used to induce the complainants to recant their statements, and to dissuade them from giving evidence in the criminal proceeding against Mr. Dhanda. [ 161 ] Finally, Mr. Narwal’s failure to “stop” his family from driving around the Dutt Residence, including his own involvement in that activity, formed part of the same chain of threats and corrupt acts designed to keep the pressure on the complainants to dissuade them from giving evidence against Mr. Dhanda while Mr.

Dhanda’s case remained before the court. [ 162 ] In sum, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence against Mr. Narwal. [ 163 ] I will now turn to the Crown’s case against Ms. Dhanda. [ 164 ] There is no direct evidence that Ms. Dhanda made any threats, bribes, or other inducements to the complainants to recant their statements. The case against Ms. Dhanda largely turns on telephone conservations she had with Mr.

Dhanda while in custody, and from the inferences that can be drawn from those conversations. [ 165 ] On a close review of transcript references set out earlier in my reasons, especially with regard to Recording #2, I have concluded that Ms. Dhanda knew what transpired between Mr. Dutt and Mr. Narwal following the May 29 th meeting at the Dutt Residence, and was keenly aware of what needed to be done in anticipation of Mr. Dhanda’s upcoming June 8 th court date. [ 166 ] For instance, on May 30 th , Ms. Dhanda, told duty counsel for Mr. Dhanda that Mr.

Dutt was retracting his statement and she conveyed this information to her brother. She had a recording of Mr. Dutt saying that he was going to the police station to retract his statement. In that same conversation, Ms. Dhanda told her brother that she personally made inquiries of the police about the investigation. [ 167 ] When Mr. Narwal joined in on that same telephone call and reported on the status of Mr. Dutt’s efforts to withdraw his statement, Ms. Dhanda directed Mr. Narwal to call Mr. Dutt and tell him “he was mistaken, that it was someone else not him….

Call him right away and tell him… say this was not him”. The “him” she was referring to was Mr. Dhanda. [ 168 ] After Mr. Narwal departs from the call, Mr. Dhanda told Ms. Dhanda that “if these people can come to June 8 to the court hearing, that would be even better too”. Ms. Dhanda then replies by saying that she will “talk to Sikander”. [ 169 ] From these passages, I have concluded that Ms. Dhanda provided specific direction to her husband on what Mr. Dutt needed to say to retract his statement. By directing Mr. Narwal to tell Mr. Dutt he was mistaken (i.e. in his identification of Mr.

Dhanda as the perpetrator in his statement to police), Ms. Dhanda knew this direction was needed to persuade Mr. Dutt to change his statement to police, and she made this direction to achieve this purpose. In my opinion, the act of directing Mr. Narwal to “tell Mr. Dutt he was mistaken”, was the corrupt means, in the sense of a dishonest act, of persuasion: R. v. Reynolds, supra , at para. 69. [ 170 ] Following Mr. Dhanda’s arrest, Ms.

Dhanda continued to interact with the Dutt’s in a number of ways, including: driving her Jetta around [omitted for publication] Street and [omitted for publication] Street, by revving her vehicle in front of a pedestrian crosswalk as R. and her cousin were crossing; and by standing in front of the Dutt Residence swearing loudly and using profanity. [ 171 ] I find that Ms. Dhanda’s continued interactions with the Dutt family were intentional acts which formed part of the same chain of corrupt acts to keep the pressure on the complainants to dissuade them from giving evidence while Mr.

Dhanda’s case remained before the court.

[ 172 ] The Crown has thus proven beyond a reasonable doubt the actus reus and the mens rea for this offence against Ms. Dhanda. [ 173 ] I thus find Mr. Narwal and Ms. Dhanda guilty of the charge of attempt to obstruct justice contrary to s. 139(3) (

a) of the Criminal Code and they are each convicted on Count 1 of the Indictment. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge D. Dorey Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - Released December 5, 2019 In the Reasons for Judgment dated November 28, 2019, the following changes have been made: [1] Paragraph 101 should be replaced in its entirety and will now read: [101] Mr. Dutt was not challenged on the note itself nor was he significantly challenged on the circumstances surrounding the note. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge D. Dorey Provincial Court of British Columbia