| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Convicted Canadian terrorist seeks new trial |
| 2010-05-17 |
| The divide could not be wider between federal prosecutors and Mohammad Momin Khawaja as the top court in Ontario hears an appeal from the first person charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Crown is asking the Ontario Court of Appeal to uphold the terrorism-related convictions of the former Ottawa computer software operator and impose a sentence of life in prison, plus 33 years. "Terrorism is different. It is conceptually and morally distinguishable from ordinary crime because it strikes at the very fabric of our free and democratic society," write prosecutors Beverly Wilton and Nicholas Devlin in arguments filed with the court. For his part, Khawaja is seeking a new trial, arguing that his convictions on five of the seven charges were unreasonable. At a minimum, he is asking to be sentenced to "time served" for the six years already spent in custody. Both sides will put forward their views of the appropriate penalty for Khawaja at a three-day hearing that begins on Tuesday at the Court of Appeal. It is the first time an appellate level court in Canada has been asked to determine the fit sentence for a terrorism offence. Khawaja, 31, was convicted of financing and facilitating terrorism as a result of his ties to a British-based group whose terror plot involving a fertilizer bomb was foiled by the authorities. Khawaja was also found guilty of two criminal offences involving a remote control device that could detonate a bomb. Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford sentenced Khawaja to a further 10 years in prison in March 2009, in addition to five years in pre-trial custody. The judge found that the Crown had not proven Khawaja knew of any specific bomb plot. Instead, he was guilty of supporting "terrorist activity" because of his links to the British group and its support for the armed conflict in Afghanistan. Khawaja should be sentenced for his actions and not the conduct of terrorists such as the September 11 hijackers, argue his lawyers Lawrence Greenspon and Eric Granger. "Their sins ought not to be visited upon Mr. Khawaja in the form of a crushing sentence," they state. During the trial, a section of the Criminal Code that required the Crown to show terrorist activity was for a "political, religious or ideological purpose," was found by Judge Rutherford to violate the freedom of religion provisions of the Charter of Rights. The judge excised the "motive clause" and ruled the rest of the section valid, which is criticized by Khawaja's lawyers. "Perversely, the decision of the trial judge to sever 'motive' from the definition of 'terrorist activity' and to dispense with motive as an element of all terrorist offences uses the Charter not to constrain government action but as an instrument for reducing liberty and freedom and increasing the power of the state," write Khawaja's lawyers. As a result, he was "convicted for offences unknown to law," they say. The Crown is arguing that the "motive clause" does not violate the Charter and that it has shown Khawaja is an unrepentant extremist. "He lived the archetypal life of a modern Western jihadist. He held an innocuous job by day, built detonators and bantered about the destruction of Israel and the West by night," the Crown states. "He stayed mute at his trial, offering no explanation for his words and deeds. His claim that the verdicts are unreasonable has no merit," it adds. The wrongdoing of Khawaja and the extent of his links to the British group have been overstated by the prosecution, his lawyers argue. As well, the remote control device found in his home was "rudimentary" and "never perfected, delivered or used," they suggest. |
| Posted by:ryuge |