This is not manslaughter - This is the deliberate murder of a person

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The problems with our legal % justice system are clearly demonstrated in this case.

How you can drive, pin a person against a tree resulting in their death and call this manslaughter.

Four more years for man convicted in 2007 death of York officer | Posted Toronto | National Post

Newmarket, Ont. • The Toronto man convicted in the 2007 death of a York Regional Police Officer received a 12-year sentence in a Newmarket court on Wednesday.

The Honourable Michelle Fuerst of the Superior Court of Justice, awarded Nadeem Jiwa two-for-one credit for the time he has previously served in pre-trial custody, which means the now 23-year-old will serve another four years and two months in jail.

A jury found Jiwa guilty of manslaughter April 28, after he pinned Detective Constable Robert Plunkett against a tree with the stolen Honda Accord he was driving, severing the 42-year-old officer’s aorta. He was acquitted of the more serious charge of first-degree murder.

As the judge read the sentence before a courtroom packed with Det. Const. Plunkett’s friends, family and fellow officers, Sonja Plunkett and her daughter Amanda maintained their composure as they glanced at each other and nodded.

On the other side of the courtroom, Izaat Jiwa, mother of the accused, burst into tears. Jiwa, who was wearing a grey sweater over a white collared shirt, turned and nodded at his mother.

Outside the court, Ms. Plunkett expressed relief that her family had received some closure after a “very long and unimaginable journey.” One that could easily have been avoided if Jiwa had listened to police commands the night of Aug. 2, 2007, she said.

“[Police] do an honourable, difficult, and selfless job,” she said. “That is what my husband Rob Plunkett was all about.”

Police Chief Eric Joliffe joined Ms. Plunkett outside court and spoke of the long ordeal that both the Plunkett family and the York Regional Police Force has had to endure over the past four years.

“I’m pleased to see that Nadeem Jiwa has received the sentence he was given,” he said.

The maximum possible sentence for manslaughter is life in prison, but there is no required minimum sentence.

The defence had requested a sentence of between five and seven years. The Crown argued that although Jiwa was convicted of manslaughter, he deserved a harsher sentence, in the range of 12 to 14 years.

Judge Fuerst said she took into account the victim-impact statements submitted by the Plunkett family and she found the following statement from Sonja’s submission, particularly poignant: “It took me over a year to have Rob’s cell phone disconnected. I called it several times a day and would wait for it to go to his voicemail,” she said in court last week. “I was afraid that I would forget what his voice sounded like.”

However, Judge Fuerst reminded the court that she cannot be “governed by emotions,” and that her sentence is “not intended as a measure of Plunkett’s life, or the impact of his death on the family.”

She said that while Jiwa grew up in a “loving, supportive environment,” in August 2007 he showed disrespect for his family and a “flagrant disregard,” for the 1 a.m. curfew his mother had set as his surety for bail.

Under recommendation from the Crown, Judge Fuerst determined beyond reasonable doubt that Jiwa knew that the plainclothes officers who had surrounded him as he attempted to remove the airbag from the stolen vehicle he had been driving, were police. She found it highly unlikely that Det. Const. Plunkett, a 22-year-veteran of the force, would fail to identify himself before making an arrest, and that other officers’ testimony supported this. That Jiwa failed to come to Det. Const. Plunkett’s aid when he was injured, instead attempting to flee on foot, stopping only when he realized he was surrounded, further suggests that he was attempting to resist arrest, she said.

Judge Fuerst said that her determination that Jiwa drove the vehicle in an effort to resist arrest, resulting in the death of a police officer acting in the course of his job, “seriously aggravated the sentence.”

As they left the Newmarket courtroom, the Jiwa family said they do not wish to comment on the sentencing. Jiwa’s lawyer, Lawrence Cohen, said he will be discussing the next course of action with his client.

“He was somewhat shocked at the lengthy sentence,” Mr. Cohen said, “but he’s OK.”

The sentencing comes the day after another York Regional Police officer, 32-year-old father of two Const. Garrett Styles, was killed in a traffic stop; the homicide squad is leading the investigation into his death.

Outside court, Ms. Plunkett acknowledged the eerily similar circumstances under which both police officers died.

“My attention is now turning to the Styles family and all members of the York Regional Police at this most difficult time,” she said. “My family extends their deepest condolences. Another journey is just begun.”

Jiwa also received a lifetime weapons prohibition, will be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for 10 years and was ordered to provide a mandatory DNA sample.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I think it's time to recognize the automobile as a weapon where somewhat less than accidental death is involved - including impaired. The way things stand now, if you want to kill someone, use a car.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Why was it manslaughter? What happened to second degree murder? I thought that was the standard charge when a death occurs during the commission of a crime, no?

I can see I guess why no first degree murder charge, I think that requires the ability to prove the plan to murder. Malice of forethought, or some such.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
7 years is long enough to earn him a colostomy bag.

The person I was talking about was the 15 year old that was mentioned in the post of lone wolf's that I quoted. Due to his age, the maximum that he can get under the current YJA is 7 years in prison. Therefore, he will be out by the time he is 22 years old(and more than likely he will be out before that). That doesn't seem like justice, in either of the two cases.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Why was it manslaughter? What happened to second degree murder? I thought that was the standard charge when a death occurs during the commission of a crime, no?

I can see I guess why no first degree murder charge, I think that requires the ability to prove the plan to murder. Malice of forethought, or some such.

What's happenin' nowadays and the criminals know it is the courts are so back logged and the money to prosecute is in short supply, so deals are being cut to move things through the system. I think it's a good thing with first time offenders being charged with minor crimes, but trying to save time and money putting bad guys back on the streets will cost more in the long run.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
The problems with our legal % justice system are clearly demonstrated in this case.

How you can drive, pin a person against a tree resulting in their death and call this manslaughter.

No mens rea, which is required for a murder charge.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
No mens rea, which is required for a murder charge.

I don't speak Latin :smile: (Very few others do too)

The person I was talking about was the 15 year old that was mentioned in the post of lone wolf's that I quoted. Due to his age, the maximum that he can get under the current YJA is 7 years in prison. Therefore, he will be out by the time he is 22 years old(and more than likely he will be out before that). That doesn't seem like justice, in either of the two cases.

One reason to maintain a gallows (or our version of Ol' Sparky) is for little bastards like that. There is no doubt he is the culprit, so there is no danger of expunging the wrong person. All that would be left to argue is the seriousness of the crime, but I'm sure his widow and daughter could give an accurate evaluation of that.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Just to be a devil's advocate here.... in order to find someone guilty of 1st degree, you have to prove intent to kill.... all evidence shows he was trying to evade arrest, not to purposely kill any of the officers.

And the fact that the officer's family and friends have accepted the sentence and have had closure over the whole ordeal, that should be the end of it, because as I see it, what really matters is if the victims or the victim's family are satisfied and get their closure over the crime. If they feel justice was served, then let it be and move on.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
I don't speak Latin :smile: (Very few others do too)



One reason to maintain a gallows (or our version of Ol' Sparky) is for little bastards like that.

Then we can join countries like Iran and China who execute children.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
If you want to count 15 as "children"- he was old enough to drive a vehicle, so he should be old enough to take responsibility.

Actually he'd have to be 16 to be able to legally drive in Ontario and it would be at least a year after that before he could drive alone. The law considers minors to be children.

If we are to start charging people in this age group as adults, fine, but be consistent. Give them all of the benefits that come with being an adult, the right to vote, allow them to drink, give them fair wages when they work etc.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Actually he'd have to be 16 to be able to legally drive in Ontario and it would be at least a year after that before he could drive alone. The law considers minors to be children.

If we are to start charging people in this age group as adults, fine, but be consistent. Give them all of the benefits that come with being an adult, the right to vote, allow them to drink, give them fair wages when they work etc.

Those are good points for another thread, and I agree with much of what you say, but there we would be dealing with legality on all issues. This little bugger decided he wasn't going the legal route, so should we be embarking on a legal track when it suits him? I think NOT. :lol:
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Just to be a devil's advocate here.... in order to find someone guilty of 1st degree, you have to prove intent to kill.... all evidence shows he was trying to evade arrest, not to purposely kill any of the officers.

And the fact that the officer's family and friends have accepted the sentence and have had closure over the whole ordeal, that should be the end of it, because as I see it, what really matters is if the victims or the victim's family are satisfied and get their closure over the crime. If they feel justice was served, then let it be and move on.

That in itself is the root of the problem. If when committing a crime someone dies it should be murder. Just because it was not planned does not detract from the facts that it happened. Oh my, it was an accident. Really.

To look upon what happened here and state - prove intent - well consider the probability of serious injury or death. Impossible to prove. Then the law should be amended as such.

He had a Police Officer trapped, kept on driving, the van rolled due to the struggle. The Officer died. He had proved intent to harm or injure by continuing to drive. That in itself is overlooked in your point.

As to what the family expected to receive as so called closure. a term that is not fact as closure, fully closure never happens, perhaps then family impact statements would be considered when sentencing. They are not allowed in Canadian Law. Again a point over looked. Consider the family was well briefed on what could be expected.

Lastly bring what the family expects as reasonable, perhaps Sharia Law where the family can demand the death penalty. We live in a multi cultural society - so that depending upon the ethnicity is a reasonable point to bring forward.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
As to what the family expected to receive as so called closure. a term that is not fact as closure, fully closure never happens, perhaps then family impact statements would be considered when sentencing. They are not allowed in Canadian Law. Again a point over looked. Consider the family was well briefed on what could be expected.

Lastly bring what the family expects as reasonable, perhaps Sharia Law where the family can demand the death penalty. We live in a multi cultural society - so that depending upon the ethnicity is a reasonable point to bring forward.

In criminal cases it is the Crown against a suspect, not the family of a victim. The family can pursue a civil case if they wish to, though they likely won't gain anything from it. If we tailor sentences to what the victim's family wants on every crime we can end up with very different and unfair treatments of criminals who have committed the same crime. One person may go free while another is executed, fortunately the latter is not possible here. Crimes should remain impersonal and be considered crimes against the state, rather than be handed over to the individual and be a quest for revenge.

We may be multi-cultural but we have only one law. It should remain that way. The police officer likely believed the same thing, otherwise he wouldn't have taken a job upholding said laws.

That in itself is the root of the problem. If when committing a crime someone dies it should be murder. Just because it was not planned does not detract from the facts that it happened. Oh my, it was an accident. Really.

It is considered homicide whenever a person dies in an event regardless of the circumstances. It is the circumstances which determine whether or not it is murder, and then the type of murder.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
In criminal cases it is the Crown against a suspect, not the family of a victim.
Actually, it's the 'public interest' against the defendant. The 'public interest' is represented by the Crown.
Crimes should remain impersonal and be considered crimes against the state, rather than be handed over to the individual and be a quest for revenge.
Good luck with that. I have personally heard a Crown make personal emotional references in a Courtroom, that neither the Duty Counsel, nor the Judge challenged.

It is considered homicide whenever a person dies in an event regardless of the circumstances. It is the circumstances which determine whether or not it is murder, and then the type of murder.
In this case, it was manslaughter. Intent, not circumstances makes all the difference. In the latest case, with the young offender, it will be the same ending, manslaughter. Because neither had intent.
 
Last edited: