-
Citation: R. v. Sandhu Date: 20140709 2014 BCPC 0148 File No:
58028
Registry: Richmond
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA
v.
SUKHDEEP SINGH SANDHU
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE PATRICK CHEN
Counsel for the Crown: Mr. Kerr Clark
Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. Danny Markovitz
Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C.
Dates of Hearing: April 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, May 1
& 15, 2014
Date of Judgment: July 9, 2014
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 1
[1] The Accused has been charged with the following counts:
Count 1: Attempted murder of Jaspaul Ricky Sidhu, using a
firearm, contrary to Section 239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code;
Count 2: Aggravated assault of Inderjit Singh Gill, contrary to
Section 268(2) of the Criminal Code;
Count 3: Aggravated assault of Amrit Singh Bunwait, contrary
to
Section 268(2) of the Criminal Code;
Count 4: Aggravated Assault of Rajinder Dhariwal, contrary
to
Section 268(2) of the Criminal Code;
Count 5: Intentional discharge of a restricted or prohibited
firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another
person, contrary to
Section 244.2(3) of the Criminal Code;
Count 6: Possession of a firearm, a Heckler and Koch 9mm
handgun,
knowing that he was not the holder of a licence under which he
may possess the firearm and a registration certificate for the
firearm, contrary to Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code;
Count 7: Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted
firearm, a Heckler and Koch 9mm handgun, without being a holder of
an
authorization or licence under which he may possess the
prohibited or restricted firearm in that place and a registration
certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 95(1) of the
Criminal Code.
[2] All of these offences are alleged to have occurred on or
about January 16,
2013 at the Riverside Banquet Hall at 14500 River Road,
Richmond, British
Columbia.
[3] I have heard evidence from the following Crown
witnesses:
RCMP: Corporal Baltzer, Corporal Howard, Constable Lee,
Constable
Mushi, Constable Zentner, Corporal Bradshaw, Constable Simpson,
Constable Opoku and Constable Hazell.
Victims: Jaspaul Singh (Ricky) Sidhu, Rajinder Dhariwal,
Inderjit Gill and Amrit Bunwait.
Other civilian witnesses: Davinder Singh Sandhu, Amarjit
Dhinsa,
Rupinder Jit Mann, Jaspreet Singh Banwait, Amraj Singh
Bains.
Experts: Psychiatrists, Dr. Stuart Lax and Dr. Christopher
Robertson.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 2
[4] I have heard evidence from the Accused and from the
following defence
witnesses:
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Stanley Semrau, the Accuseds brother
Gurdeep Sandhu, his sister Mandeep Sandhu, his sister-in-law Ramin
Sandhu and his cousin Majinder (Manny) Sandhu.
[5] A set of admissions was filed as Exhibit 1 in this
trial.
ISSUES
[6] Virtually all of the facts regarding these offences are not
in dispute. The
Accused has conceded, and I have found, that the Crown has
established, prima
facie, the Accuseds guilt on each count beyond a reasonable
doubt. The Accused
submits that he is not criminally responsible for his actions by
reason of a mental
disorder (NCRMD) as described in Section 16 of the Criminal
Code.
Defence of mental disorder
16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed
or an
omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that
rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and
quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
Presumption
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental
disorder so as to
be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection
(1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of
probabilities.
Burden of proof
(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a
mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is
on the party that
raises the issue.
[7] The Crown submits that the Accused has not satisfied the
burden upon him
to rebut the presumption contained in Subsection (2). The Crown
concedes that
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 3
the Accused suffers from the mental disorder of paranoid
schizophrenia. The issue
is whether the Accused has established, on a balance of
probabilities, that his
mental disorder, at the time of the offences, rendered him
incapable of appreciating
the nature and quality of his actions or of knowing that his
actions were wrong.
THE EVENTS AT THE RIVERSIDE BANQUET HALL
[8] On the evening of January 16, 2013, a crowd of over 100
people attended a
party at the Riverside Banquet Hall on River Road in Richmond to
celebrate the
induction of a number of new members into the longshoremens
union. This was an
auspicious occasion and cause for celebration as members
generally have to work
10 to 12 years as casual labour before being allowed to enter
the union. It would
appear that there is a certain amount of nepotism involved in
the process of gaining
membership into the union, as a number of witnesses testified
that they were
assisted in gaining membership by fathers who were long-time
union members.
Once a union member, longshoremen are allowed a great many
privileges,
including a much higher salary, choice of shifts, and job
security, basically for the
rest of their lives. Virtually all of the people attending the
party were longshoremen
and their friends and family, including the Accused and the
victims.
[9] On the day of the party, the Accuseds cousin, Davinder
Sandhu (also a
longshoreman), asked the Accused to come to the party and be the
designated
driver for him and his friend Amrit Dhinsa. He wanted to drink
alcohol and knew
that the Accused did not drink alcohol. The Accused initially
said he did not wish to
go, but ultimately agreed to do his cousin the favour.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 4
[10] Prior to driving to his cousins house, the Accused put on a
bullet-proof vest
and loaded his gun, a Heckler and Koch 9mm semi-automatic
handgun with the
serial numbers obliterated. He brought the handgun as well as an
extra magazine
clip of ammunition for it. The Accused had purchased the handgun
about 2 years
earlier and the vest about a year earlier. The Accused has never
been the holder of
a licence or authorization under which he could legally possess
the firearm or a
registration certificate for the firearm.
[11] The Accused drove to his cousins house, parked his car and
left for the
banquet hall driving his cousins Honda, picking up his cousins
friend Amrit Dhinsa
en route. When they arrived, Davinder Sandhu and Amrit Dhinsa
were dropped off
while the Accused went to park the car.
[12] Inside the banquet hall, about 100 people had already
gathered while
approximately another 20 were in the parking lot.
[13] Jaspaul (Ricky) Singh Sidhu went to the party with his
friend Amrit Bunwait.
They met up there with another friend, Amraj Bains, who had been
dropped off by
his wife. As he was walking towards the bar, Mr. Sidhu saw the
Accused coming
towards him. Mr. Sidhu thought the Accused would pass by him
but, instead, the
Accused drew a gun, pointed it at his head, and shot him from
close range. The
bullet entered the left side of Mr. Sidhus nose, shattered his
right cheekbone and
exited through his right ear.
[14] Mr. Sidhu fell to his hands and knees. The Accused stood
over him with the
gun pointing at the right side of Mr. Sidhus head from about a
foot away. The gun
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 5
misfired or jammed. Mr. Sidhu and Mr. Bunwait could hear it
click at least 3 times.
The Accused tried to unjam the gun by moving the slide mechanism
back and forth
several times. At that point, Mr. Bunwait hurdled over Mr. Sidhu
and pushed the
Accused, who fell backwards onto the buffet table. Mr. Sidhu
crawled away,
attempting to find cover under a table. Mr. Bunwait assisted him
by pulling him by
his collar.
[15] At some point, Mr. Sidhus friend Amraj Bains came up from
behind the
Accused, grabbed him around the neck and tried to wrestle the
gun away from him.
The Accused told him let go of me or Ill shoot you. Mr. Bains
released the
Accused who then fled.
[16] The scene at the banquet hall after Mr. Sidhu was shot was
chaotic with
people scurrying for cover and running towards exits. Tables and
chairs were
pushed and overturned during the confusion.
[17] While Mr. Sidhu was crawling to find cover under a table
with Amrit Bunwaits
assistance, more shots were fired by the Accused.
[18] A second bullet struck Mr. Sidhu, entering his left side,
tearing through his
stomach and intestines and exiting through the back of his right
leg. A third bullet
entered Mr. Sidhus left thigh where it still remains, as doctors
have determined that
more damage would result by trying to remove it than by leaving
it there.
[19] Another bullet struck Mr. Bunwait while he was attempting
to assist Mr.
Sidhu, going through both of his thighs.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 6
[20] Another bullet ricocheted into Inderjit Gills neck as he
turned towards the
sound of the shots fired. That bullet entered the left side of
Mr. Gills neck under his
jawbone, hit his C3 and C4 vertebrae which fractured, but
managed to turn the
bullet, so that it ended up protruding slightly out the back of
his neck.
[21] Another bullet grazed the inside of Rajinder Dhariwals left
leg. He appears
to have made a full recovery.
[22] Mr. Sidhu spent 3 weeks in the hospital where he was fed
intravenously. He
was not able to eat solid food for many months. The doctors
placed a plate over his
right cheek and performed reconstructive surgery on his right
abdomen. Four
screws hold the plate over his cheek in place and he can still
feel the screw under
his right eye. Pieces were cut out of his large and small
intestine. He has a large
scar from his stomach to his waist where he was stapled back
together after
surgery. The vision in his right eye has deteriorated and he has
lost some of the
vision in that eye. Mr. Sidhu returned to work in February,
approximately 13
months after the incident and is currently assigned light
duties. Although he cannot
perform all the tasks he handled previously, he has now returned
to his work as a
crane operator.
[23] Inderjit Gill spent 3 days in the hospital and wore a neck
brace for about 3
months. He had to wait until March 4 to have the bullet removed
from his neck as
the doctors wanted his vertebrae to heal more before attempting
surgery. He still
has 3 pieces of shrapnel in his neck, the largest of which is
approximately 5mm
long. Mr. Gill tried to return to work after about a year but
had to stop after about a
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 7
month, as the work was aggravating his injury. He still cannot
feel the left side of
his throat when he swallows, and has a tingling sensation
running from the left side
of his head branching down to his left shoulder and chest. He
has difficulty
breathing and experiences numbness in his lips. He can no longer
handle his
former job as a holdman working on ships, as that work causes
him pain and his
hands to tremble. Mr. Gill is currently taking physio and
massage therapy. He is
considering seeking different kinds of work within the union
that wont aggravate his
injury.
[24] Amrit Bunwait spent 3 days in the hospital and has not been
able to work
since the incident. He still cannot walk without the assistance
of crutches.
POST-OFFENCE CONDUCT
[25] Constable Mushi was driving eastbound on River Road with
his passenger
Constable Zentner in an unmarked police SUV, when they received
a dispatch
reporting of multiple complaints of shooting at the Riverside
Banquet Hall. The
dispatch advised that the suspect was an East Indian male
approximately 30 years
old and approximately 52 tall, wearing a black jacket and
toque.
[26] As Constable Mushi was making a 3-point U-turn intending to
turn
westbound, he saw an older model blue Honda approaching
eastbound from the
direction of the banquet hall at an extremely high rate of
speed. Both Constables
testified that the Honda almost hit their SUV as it sped by
them.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 8
[27] Constable Mushi noted that the driver was a dark-skinned
male wearing a
black jacket and a hoodie pulled over his head. He also noted
that the driver
appeared to have a fixed gaze, made no eye contact, did not look
at their vehicle or
react in any way to the fact that the police SUV was across the
roadway making a
U-turn. Constables Mushi and Zentner felt that this vehicle
might be involved in the
shooting at the banquet hall and decided to follow it. Constable
Mushi made
another U-turn to head eastbound again and attempted to close
the distance
between their vehicles without activating his emergency lights
and siren.
[28] The Honda pulled over to the side of the road when
Constables Mushi and
Zentner were about 100 meters away. At that point, Constable
Mushi activated his
lights and siren. According to Constable Mushis evidence, the
driver of the Honda
reacted to the siren and began to quickly drive away again.
[29] About 30 to 40 meters later, the Honda made a right turn
into a driveway at
18560 River Road. Constable Mushi followed the Honda which came
to a stop at
the end of the paved roadway in the area of 3 large greenhouses.
Constable Mushi
stopped the police SUV about 3 to 4 feet behind the Honda. Both
Constables
exited the SUV, unholstered their service pistols, identified
that they were RCMP
officers and commanded the driver to stop his vehicle and to put
his hands up.
[30] The Accused complied initially. However, when Constable
Mushi
commanded the Accused to reach for his ignition with his left
hand, the Accused put
both hands down, moved around in the vehicle and threw a jacket
or clothing item
into the back seat. Constable Mushi commanded the Accused again
to keep his
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 9
hands up at all times. The Accuseds hands went up again.
Constable Mushi
commanded the Accused to turn the ignition off with his left
hand while keeping his
right hand up in the air. This time the Accused complied.
Constable Mushi then
commanded the Accused to keep his right hand up while slowly
opening the drivers
side door with his left hand. However, the Accused again put
both hands down,
moved around again in the Honda and threw some items out of the
open drivers
side window.
[31] When the Accused exited the Honda, he was wearing a grey
short-sleeved
shirt. However, a black jacket was found in the back seat and a
bullet-proof vest
was found in the drivers seat. A pair of gloves and a running
shoe were found
outside of the drivers side of the Honda, where the Accused had
thrown them. The
match to the running shoe was found outside the Riverside
Banquet Hall. A
magazine clip containing ten 9mm bullets was found just west of
the Honda. The
Heckler and Koch semi-automatic handgun was found the next
morning in a grassy
area near to where the Honda had stopped.
[32] The Accused was arrested by Constable Mushi and has
remained in custody
since the night of the incident.
THE ACCUSEDS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIMS
[33] The Accused had been a longshoreman for many years and was
known by
many of the people attending the party that night at the
Riverside Banquet Hall.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 10
[34] Mr. Sidhu and the Accused were close friends in high school
but had a falling
out in October of 2002 or 2003 when, according to the evidence
of Mr. Sidhu, the
Accused and his friends viciously attacked him. After that
incident, their friendship
ended. For the next 10 years, they barely spoke to each other.
After high school,
they would see each other at work, as both became longshoremen.
Both of their
fathers are also longshoremen and their respective parents had
been friends.
[35] Mr. Sidhu testified that he had no reason to think that the
Accused would try
to shoot or harm him that evening. When asked in
cross-examination why the
Accused might want to harm him, Mr. Sidhu stated:
I know what kind of person he is, his mentality. Hes a person
who wants to be feared. He wants to be the tough guy.
[36] Mr. Sidhu also stated that he felt the Accused was jealous
of his car and his
lifestyle.
[37] Neither Rajinder Dhariwal nor Inderjit Gill have any
relationship with the
Accused beyond being co-workers. At the time of these offences,
they did not
know the Accused by name. Amrit Bunwait, who is not a
longshoreman, did not
know the Accused at all on the night of the shootings. Other
than Mr. Sidhu, who
confirmed that he and the Accused had not spoken for over 10
years and had
become virtual strangers to each other, none of the victims were
able to offer any
explanation or motive for the Accuseds actions that night.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 11
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE ACCUSEDS MENTAL STATE
[38] The Accuseds cousin, Majinder Sandhu (Manny), has known the
Accused
his entire life. They would meet at family gatherings and saw
each other more often
after 2004 when they both became longshoremen. It was then that
Manny Sandhu
noticed that the Accuseds behaviour had become quite odd. The
Accused would
relate thoughts to him that he described as mumbo jumbo and
exhibit symptoms
of paranoia.
[39] At first, Manny Sandhu thought that the Accuseds odd
behaviours were
caused by his heavy use of marijuana which he used to medicate
his Crohns
disease (an inflammation affecting the bowels). Manny Sandhu
testified that the
Accused ceased using marijuana in 2011 or 2012.
[40] However, according to Manny Sandhus evidence, despite
ceasing his use of
marijuana, the Accuseds paranoia became progressively more
severe at that time.
The Accused would make special visits to female relatives to
give them pepper
spray, instructing them to carry it with them when out of their
houses. The Accused
would also express his suspicions that there were hostages in
their houses.
[41] On one occasion, when a female co-worker who also had
Crohns disease
was having lunch with them and stated no, I cant eat that, I
have Crohns disease,
the Accused thought she was making fun of him. On other
occasions, when the
Accused saw Manny Sandhu speaking with Ricky Sidhu, he would say
Hey, you
guys were laughing over there. Were you talking about me?
Whenever the
Accused saw Manny Sandhu talking and laughing with others, he
would ask Manny
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 12
Sandhu what they had been laughing about. Manny Sandhu testified
that the
Accused was expressing so many paranoid thoughts that sometimes
he just would
not answer and ignore him. Manny Sandhu felt the Accused was
delusional.
[42] Manny Sandhu testified that the familys concern about the
Accuseds mental
state reached a peak in 2012. He testified that at that point,
everyone in the family
thought something was wrong with the Accused, and that theyd all
had it with
him. He recalled that an appointment was made for the Accused to
seek
professional help but the Accused refused to go. According to
Manny Sandhu, after
that, the Accused stopped expressing his rambling paranoid
thoughts and became
super quiet. The family then thought the Accused was getting
better and put their
efforts to get him to a mental health professional on the
back-burner.
[43] Mandeep Sandhu, the Accuseds sister, is three years older
than the
Accused and is a registered nurse working in acute care at a
hospital. She testified
that she discovered about 3 years ago that her brother was
suffering from Crohns
disease. She could tell he was not managing well with it and
tried to discuss it with
him, but he would not talk about it with her. She then provided
the Accused with
her textbook so that he could read about it. She testified that
the Accuseds
behaviour started changing around that time. He was becoming
more introverted,
staying at home more, and stayed in his room much of the
time.
[44] The Accused, according to Mandeep Sandhus evidence, would
do things
that struck her as odd, come up with a rationale for his actions
when she
questioned them but, when questioned further, would be very
short with her. For
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 13
example, when she questioned why the Accused would shut all the
blinds on a nice
sunny day, he would reply curtly, this is private, people can
look inside your
house.
[45] The Accused planted trees around the house for privacy and
surrounded the
house with video surveillance cameras notwithstanding that his
family was against
the idea.
[46] Mandeep Sandhu testified that, the Accused became obsessed
with the idea
that a chip could be placed inside peoples brains that would
enable others to see
inside their thoughts. When she disagreed with him, the Accused
would initially
stop talking about it, but then would later blurt out that the
reason she couldnt find
anything on-line about it, was because it existed only in the
military. Mandeep felt
these were purposeless conversations and a waste of her
time.
[47] Mandeep Sandhu also testified that her brother was also
obsessed with the
idea that his Crohns disease had been caused by mercury
poisoning, despite her
advice that there was no basis for such a belief.
[48] Mandeep Sandhu would constantly tell the Accused that he
was being
paranoid. It reached a point where she became concerned for his
mental health.
She discussed her brothers symptoms with her cousin Sunny, who
was a
psychiatric nurse. Sunny suggested that the Accused could be
suffering from
psychosis.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 14
[49] Mandeep, Sunny and Sunnys sister Meena went to the
psychiatric
department at Royal Columbian Hospital to seek advice as to what
their options
were and how they should address the Accuseds situation. They
also wanted to
know how normal or abnormal the Accuseds behaviours were.
[50] They were able to speak to an East Indian psychiatrist
named Raj, who
referred them to EPI, or the Early Psychosis Intervention
program, run out of an
office on East Hastings Street. When they went there, they were
able to speak to a
staff member and obtain some pamphlets. The staff member advised
them that,
under the Mental Health Act, unless the Accused was presenting
as a danger to
himself or others, he could not be placed into such a program
involuntarily. The
staff member suggested that they could talk to him to try to
persuade him to
participate in the program, but that it would then have to be
his decision.
[51] One day, while the Accused was talking to Mandeep Sandhu
again about the
chip that could be placed inside peoples brains, and teaching
her how to make
three left turns instead of a right turn, to find out who was
following her, she became
annoyed and told him he was being crazy. She suggested that he
go for testing to
find out what was really going on. The Accused became angry,
insisted that the
things he was expressing were real, and that she was being nave.
He then
stormed out of the house and ended their conversation.
[52] Mandeep Sandhu testified that their mother also has a
mental health issue
and was once admitted to the psychiatric ward for 2 weeks. The
doctors informed
the family that their mother had been suffering from mental
illness for 20 to 25
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 15
years. They did not provide a formal or specific diagnosis but
did prescribe her
Seroquel, an anti-psychotic. She continues to be a mental health
patient supported
in the community by a mental health team which checks on her
regularly,
sometimes coming to the house.
[53] Mandeep Sandhu also testified that her mothers 2 sisters
suffer from
depression and are receiving medication for it.
[54] Ramin Sandhu, the Accuseds sister-in-law, has been married
to the
Accuseds elder brother, Gurdeep Sandhu, for 15 years. She is a
registered nurse
in the oncology department. For the first 10 years of her
marriage to Gurdeep, they
lived in the same house as the Accused and his parents.
[55] Ramin Sandhu testified that she noticed the Accuseds
behaviour changing
during his teens, particularly after he contracted his Crohns
disease. According to
her evidence, the Accused became very hard to get along with,
started fighting with
his siblings, missing school, having attitude issues and having
problems with
authority figures, parents and siblings. He also started using
marijuana heavily at
that time, which led to Gurdeep and her moving out and into
their own home, as
she did not want that influence around her son.
[56] Ramin Sandhu also testified as to the Accuseds paranoid
behaviours. He
would come to her home, go through her closet and look behind
her doors. He
would go into her tenants suite when they were not home. She
would tell the
Accused that the tenants were not home but he would not believe
her. He brought
surveillance cameras to their home and persuaded her husband to
put them up. He
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 16
would also phone her to ask what she was doing, then call her
husband to check on
her answers. He would sometimes call their home and hang up
without saying
anything. He would tell her husband and her that their phones
were being tapped.
Sometimes he would call to inquire about extended family
members. When he
came to their home, he would park down the street instead of in
their driveway. He
also brought her pepper spray to carry for her protection,
saying it was because she
worked night shifts.
[57] According to Ramin Sandhus evidence, the Accused would show
up
randomly at family members houses unannounced, ask them many
questions, but
never answer any from others about himself. He would present
with a very flat
facial expression.
[58] Ramin Sandhu testified that the family was becoming
increasingly concerned
about the Accuseds psychiatric health after a physical
altercation he had with his
brother (her husband) Gurdeep. The family decided that the
Accused needed
psychiatric help. She felt that the Accuseds behaviours were
progressing to
paranoia. Although the Accused never self-reported having
delusions, she inferred
that he was experiencing them from his actions, such as the way
he would go
through their house when he visited. She testified that he was
becoming
increasingly withdrawn and quiet.
[59] Gurdeep Sandhu, the Accuseds elder brother, described him
as having
extreme mood swings in his early teens. He noted a more
pronounced change in
the Accused when he reached his 20s, especially after he
contracted Crohns
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 17
disease. According to the evidence of Gurdeep Sandhu, the
Accused was
becoming edgier and more paranoid. The Accused would look at
people with a
blank stare and, when asked what was going on, he would reply
nothing but just
keep staring. He would sometimes appear to be lost in his own
thoughts, talking
about things. A few years previous, the Accused came to Gurdeeps
home and
went through the entire house, looking into closets, bedrooms
and behind sofas.
When his wife asked the Accused why he was doing that, he would
reply that
people were after them, without saying who they were.
[60] One time, in 2011, Gurdeep told the Accused that he needed
to stop these
behaviours and that he should get some help. The Accused then
replied that their
grandmother had her legs broken and that someone was coming
after their family.
Gurdeep testified that this was not true. He testified that his
wifes grandmother
had been confined to a wheelchair after suffering a stroke about
5 years ago, but
their own grandmother had had no problems with her legs.
EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED
[61] The Accused testified on his own behalf. According to his
testimony he did
not notice that he was hearing voices for a long time. The
voices he heard were so
strong that he never realized they were not real. He described
these voices as
being as real to him as the voice of any other person talking to
him. He first began
to suspect the voices were not real when they started telling
him to do things that
did not make sense to him - like jumping off a building or
hitting his head against a
wall. He finally realized he was hearing voices that were not
real when, on one
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 18
occasion, he obeyed a voice telling him to cut himself on his
leg. When he went to
the hospital he told the doctors that he had been attacked by
people trying to rob
him because he did not want people thinking he was crazy.
[62] The Accused testified that he would tell his cousin Manny
(Majinder Sandhu)
that people were holding his family hostage and hiding in the
basement or attic.
Manny told him he was crazy and needed help. The Accused
testified that he did
not realize then that he needed help. He also did not want
people thinking he was
crazy and did not want to be put into a hospital, so he stopped
talking to family
members about his paranoid delusions. He never did speak to
people outside the
family about them.
[63] The Accused testified that on the evening of January 16,
2013 his cousin
Dave (Davinder) asked him for a favour - to be his designated
driver to drive him
and a friend to the longshoremens party at the Riverside Banquet
Hall. The
Accused agreed but heard voices telling him to bring a gun and
the bullet-proof vest
for protection which he obeyed. According to the Accuseds
testimony, he had no
intention of shooting anyone that night.
[64] After arriving at the banquet hall, the Accused went to the
washroom and
when he came out he heard voices telling him that Mr. Sidhu was
going to kill him.
He looked at Mr. Sidhu who he perceived to be having his hands
in his pockets and
fidgeting around as though he was reaching for something, which
he thought to be
a gun. At that point he heard voices - including Mr. Sidhus
voice - saying that Mr.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 19
Sidhu was going to kill him. According to the Accused, he felt
he had to shoot Mr.
Sidhu before Mr. Sidhu shot him.
[65] The Accuseds recollection was that he shot at Mr. Sidhu
once before
someone came to try to wrestle the gun away from him. According
to the Accused,
while they were wrestling, the gun discharged 3 or 4 more times.
He did not recall
deliberately shooting the gun more than once. He did not recall
shooting Mr. Sidhu
while he was on the ground or crawling. He did recall being
tackled to the ground.
He recalled hearing voices screaming at him to leave, which he
did, in his cousin
Daves car. He did not recall driving at an excessive rate of
speed or trying to
evade the police. He testified that he threw the gun away
because voices told him
to.
[66] The Accused testified that he believed Mr. Sidhu had
poisoned him, causing
his Crohns disease and was constantly making fun of him because
of it. He
testified that was embarrassed by what he perceived as Mr.
Sidhus mocking of
him, rather than angry, and had no intention of shooting Mr.
Sidhu. He is now
prepared to accept that Mr. Sidhu was not making fun of him.
[67] The Accused is currently receiving medication of 400mg of
the anti-psychotic
drug Seroquel plus 10mg of another anti-psychotic, Olanzapine.
He also takes
other medication for anxiety. The Accused testified that despite
the medication, he
still hears voices that he still has difficulty determining are
real or not. He does now
realize that some of the voices that sound completely real to
him are, in fact, not
real.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 20
[68] The Accused testified that he did not want to talk to
either Dr. Lax or Dr.
Robertson and just wanted to get out of the interview room
during their sessions.
He testified that during the period of these interviews,
hospital staff were holding
him down and injecting him with what he believed, at the time,
to be poison.
[69] The Accused testified that he realizes today that Mr. Sidhu
was not armed
that night, and that he has injured 4 innocent people. He
apologized to them during
his testimony. He stated that, after hearing from all the
witnesses at the trial and
speaking with his Counsel, he now realizes that there is
something wrong with him.
He stated that his only wish now is to get better with
continuing treatment and
medication.
THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
[70] Three expert witnesses testified at this trial. Dr. Stuart
Lax, an expert in the
field of forensic psychiatry and a licensed physician in British
Columbia, and Dr.
Christopher Robertson, a psychiatrist and a licensed physician
in British Columbia,
testified for the Crown. Dr. Stanley Semrau, an expert in
forensic psychiatry, able
to provide opinion evidence on the mental state of the Accused
at the time of the
violent acts of January 16, 2013, testified for the Accused.
[71] Dr. Robertson was the psychiatrist who prepared the
Accuseds fitness
report while Dr. Semrau and Dr. Lax were the psychiatrists who
conducted NCRMD
assessments of the Accused. Reports from all three experts have
been filed as
exhibits in this trial.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 21
Expert Evidence of Dr. Robertson
[72] Dr. Robertson prepared a court-ordered fitness assessment
on April 19,
2013. Prior to this assessment, the Accused had been certified
under the Mental
Health Act by Dr. Kerr who had found him paranoid, disorganized
and psychotic.
Dr. Robertson found the Accused fit and decertified him upon
discharge.
[73] Dr. Robertson testified that the Accused presented after
his arrest as hostile
and uncooperative, refusing to listen to staff direction or to
speak to a psychiatrist
hired by his lawyer. The Accused was placed in segregation due
to behavioural
issues. He only came out of his cell while handcuffed and with 2
or more officers
escorting him. The Accused was maintained in the seclusion room
for his entire
admission at Forensic Psychiatric Hospital.
[74] It took multiple attempts by Dr. Robertson before the
Accused would
cooperate sufficiently for a fitness assessment. Dr. Robertson
testified that the
Accused was guarded in his answers and possibly paranoid. He was
reluctant to
being interviewed and often refused to answer questions from
physicians, nurses
and other staff.
[75] In his report, Dr. Robertson tried to place the Accuseds
guardedness and
possible paranoia into context stating at paragraph 24:
It has to be taken into consideration his circumstances in which
he is potentially facing a lifetime in jail and does not appear to
be terribly familiar with the Court process. He has also been
locked up in a small
room for months and wanted to speak to his lawyer.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 22
[76] In addition, on Dr. Robertsons instructions, the Accused
had also been
injected, against his will, with medications to stabilize his
mood.
[77] When asked in cross-examination whether the Accuseds
uncooperative and
hostile actions could be indicia of paranoia, Dr. Robertson
answered that some of
these indicia could be interpreted that way but that he was not
sure. Later in cross-
examination, Defence Counsel put to Dr. Robertson a letter from
the Accuseds
brother Gurdeep describing the Accused presenting with a blank
expression,
speaking in riddles, not processing information provided to him,
and appearing to
see things that were not there, concerning the safety of his
family and others.
Defence Counsel asked Dr. Robertson whether these were clear
indications of
delusions. Dr. Robertson answered affirmatively, delusions and
possibly
hallucinations.
Expert Evidence of Dr. Lax
[78] Dr. Lax prepared a report for the purpose of determining
whether, at the time
of the offences the Accused was suffering from a mental disorder
so as to be
exempt from criminal responsibility, as defined in Section 16 of
the Criminal Code.
[79] Dr. Lax interviewed the Accused 10 times between August 26,
2013 and
October 4, 2013. He also reviewed a wide range of collateral
information including
medical and psychiatric reports, reports to Crown Counsel,
multiple witness
statements and hospital records. He also had telephone
conversations with the
Accuseds family members and with staff at the Forensic
Psychiatric Hospital
(FPH).
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 23
[80] The Accused told Dr. Lax that, on the night of the
shootings, he heard voices
telling him to put on the bullet-proof vest, load the gun and
bring it with him to the
party. The Accused told Dr. Lax he did not hear the voices again
until he saw Ricky
Sidhu at the banquet hall making fun of his Crohns disease. The
voices told the
Accused that Ricky Sidhu had a gun hidden on him. Those voices
and Ricky
Sidhus voice told him Ricky Sidhu was going to kill him. The
Accused told Dr. Lax
that he had no intention of killing Ricky Sidhu but just wanted
to shoot him so that
Ricky Sidhu would not shoot him first. He told Dr. Lax that the
only shot he fired
intentionally was the first shot and that other shots went off
inadvertently as he was
being tackled.
[81] Dr. Lax testified that virtually every time he interviewed
the Accused, the
Accused would insist on reading from notes despite repeated
requests to give
spontaneous answers. According to Dr. Laxs evidence, the Accused
was able to
answer spontaneously to questions not related to the index
offences but unable or
unwilling to do so when the questions related to the offences.
When asked
questions about material not in his notes, the Accused would
become irritable,
vague and provide contradictory answers.
[82] At paragraph 138 of Dr. Laxs report, he stated:
If the Court finds that events occurred as indicated by Mr.
Sandhus self-report, it is likely that symptoms of a mental illness
prevented him from at least knowing the moral wrongfulness of his
actions on the day of his
arrest.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 24
[83] However, it is clear from both his testimony and his report
that Dr. Lax was
troubled by inconsistencies in the Accuseds reporting to him, by
inconsistencies
between the Accuseds reporting and the evidence of other
witnesses, and by
inconsistencies between the Accuseds reporting and his actions
both before and
after the shootings at the banquet hall.
[84] Dr. Lax questioned in his report why the Accused would
attend the party
even though it was reasonable to assume he was likely afraid for
his safety given
he listened to voices to bring a gun and a bullet-proof vest,
the only time he had
brought these items out of the house. Dr. Lax questioned why the
Accused did not
simply flee when he saw Ricky Sidhu. Dr. Lax noted the
inconsistency between the
Accuseds evidence that he was not speeding and that he stopped
when he heard
the police lights and sirens, with the evidence of the police.
Dr. Laxs opinion was
that this suggested the Accused had some understanding that what
he had done
was at least legally wrong. Dr. Lax questioned why, if the
Accused thought his
actions were justified, he would throw the gun, the magazine
clip, the gloves and
shoe out of the window when he was stopped by police.
[85] Dr. Lax also noted the contrast between the Accuseds report
to him that he
had only tried to shoot Ricky Sidhu once and that other shots
were fired
inadvertently while others were trying to wrestle the gun from
him, with the account
of Amrit Bunwait that the Accused tried to shoot Ricky Sidhu
again in the head 2 or
3 times when the gun jammed, and then shot at him again a number
of times while
he was trying to drag Ricky Sidhu away and under a table. At
paragraph 141, Dr.
Lax wrote:
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 25
If the Court finds that Mr. Bunwaits account is the way the
events unfolded, namely that Mr. Sandhu continued trying to shoot
and potentially
trying to kill Mr. Sidhu after the first shot, it is not clear
to me why Mr. Sandhu would consider any of the shots after the
first one in self-defense.
It was reported that after the first shot to Mr. Sidhus face,
Mr. Sidhu was trying to get away. It is not clear why Mr. Sandhu
could not have then fled after he shot Mr. Sidhu once. Mr. Sandhu
has been adamant that he was
not trying to kill Mr. Sidhu. As well, he has denied the events
occurred as indicated by Mr. Bunwaits statement to police.
[86] I find that throughout Dr. Laxs involvement with the
Accused, in preparation
for the NCRMD report, the Accused was a most uncooperative
subject for him. Dr.
Lax confirmed this at paragraph 142 of his report:
Mr. Sandhu was an extremely difficult historian, which has made
this assessment less than straightforward. During every interview I
had with him, he was quite reluctant to answer my questions
spontaneously.
[87] Later in that same paragraph, Dr. Lax wrote:
Eventually, it appeared that he had memorized parts of his notes
to tell me because I had frequently asked him to speak with me
spontaneously.
When he did speak to me spontaneously about his current
symptoms, he would provide vague answers, such as saying the voices
come and go. Sometimes they are a whisper. Sometimes they are loud.
I dont know. I dont keep a diary. A similar or even identical
response to this question happened repeatedly over multiple
interviews.
[88] Dr. Laxs conclusions at paragraphs 151 and 152 of his
report, under the
heading Summary, Opinion and Recommendations read as
follows:
The evidence from Mr. Sandhus account and collateral from family
indicated that Mr. Sandhu likely has been experiencing psychotic
symptoms for about the last 2 to 3 years. These symptoms
improved
when he stopped frequently smoking marijuana, but paranoid
symptoms continued, which suggests that Mr. Sandhu suffers from an
underlying
psychotic disorder. It is possible that there is also an
underlying substance abuse disorder, but Mr. Sandhu has denied
this. Collateral
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 26
indicated that he was experiencing paranoid symptoms in the
years prior to his arrest, which suggests that he was experiencing
psychotic
symptoms on the day of his arrest as well.
It is possible that Mr. Sandhu followed command auditory
hallucinations
that night telling him to shoot Mr. Sidhu in self-defense. These
symptoms of his mental disorder could very well have caused him to
be unable to know the wrongfulness of his actions on that night.
However, given there
is no agreed statement of fact, there are concerns about the
inconsistency between his self-reported symptoms and his
presentation currently and in
the past, and given his reluctance during this assessment period
to give a spontaneous, unrehearsed account of his past symptoms, it
is not clear to me on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Sandhu
was experiencing
symptoms of a mental disorder to the point that he was unable to
know the wrongfulness of his actions on the night of his arrest. It
is therefore not
clear to me whether an NCRMD finding applies in this case.
Expert Evidence of Dr. Semrau
[89] Dr. Semrau was qualified by consent as an expert in
forensic psychiatry,
able to provide opinion evidence on the mental state of the
Accused at the time of
the violent acts of January 16, 2013. He had the opportunity to
review the reports
of both Dr. Robertson and that of Dr. Lax during his preparation
of his own report.
[90] Dr. Semrau conducted 3 interviews of the Accused. He also
reviewed the
Accuseds general medical records, the police disclosure file and
32 character
reference letters. He also conducted interviews of the Accuseds
brother, Gurdeep,
his sister-in-law Ramin, his sister Mandeep and his cousin
Majinder (Manny).
[91] Dr. Semrau testified that the first interview was
unsuccessful and yielded no
useful information other than significant evidence that the
Accused was seriously
mentally ill. The Accused would not cooperate with him even
though Defence
Counsel had asked him in advance to cooperate. Dr. Semrau formed
the opinion
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 27
that the Accused was suffering from paranoia to the extent that
he was concerned
with his fitness to stand trial.
[92] Notwithstanding Dr. Semraus assessment that the Accused was
still actively
mentally ill during the 2nd and 3rd interviews, the Accused
gradually became more
forthcoming. Dr. Semrau testified that the Accused was
frightened and reluctant to
disclose things that would make him feel persecuted and in
danger, and needed re-
assurance that it was alright to tell him and that he should
tell him those things.
[93] Dr. Semrau found that the Accused would make illogical
jumps in
conversation, indicating a disorganized thought process. Dr. Lax
was not able to
detect any disorganized thought process in the Accused during
his interviews.
[94] As a result of his interviews with the Accused and his
family members, Dr.
Semrau has formed the opinion that the Accused is likely
suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia. Dr. Semrau testified that he based this
assessment on what he
described as four cardinal symptoms of schizophrenia:
Delusional beliefs: particularly paranoid delusions;
Hallucinations: usually auditory hallucinations with paranoid
schizophrenics
Disorganized speech and thought processes: thoughts or speech
which have no flow or theme. Illogical jumps or leaps in the
thought process.
Ideas of Reference: where a patient has a true or accurate
perception of something happening but interprets it illogically,
such as a paranoid interpretation
that a persons behaviour or speech refers to them when it
doesnt.
[95] With respect to delusional beliefs, Dr. Semrau noted the
following
indications:
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 28
(a) The Accuseds long-held but irrational belief that his Crohns
disease was caused by Ricky Sidhu poisoning him by slipping
mercury into his drink.
(b) The Accuseds belief that Ricky Sidhu was making fun of his
Crohns disease, even though he had never witnessed this
happening.
(c) The Accuseds belief that he was being followed when driving
and making evasive manoeuvres to detect or prevent it.
(d) The Accuseds belief that his immediate and extended family
members were in danger, such as people hiding in their houses or
holding them hostage.
(e) The Accuseds belief that someone had broken his grandmothers
legs.
[96] According to Dr. Semraus evidence, delusions, and peoples
reactions to
them, can create challenges in making an assessment. For
example, when the
Accused mentioned his paranoid fears to his cousin Manny
(Majinder Sandhu),
Manny told him that his beliefs were crazy. Dr. Semrau testified
that the Accused
would struggle with his ambivalence to those beliefs and the
fact that other people
would dismiss them and consider him crazy if he disclosed them.
According to Dr.
Semrau, this type of situation often results in patients
self-censoring, editing and
being reluctant to disclose their beliefs, or being secretive
because of the fear that
such disclosure would assist those who might want to harm them.
According to Dr.
Semrau, this can cause patients suffering from delusions to
become fearful, not
knowing who to trust. They may even believe their own Defence
Counsel to be part
of the conspiracy against them and not trust them or confide in
them, fearing that it
may add to their persecution.
[97] Dr. Semrau testified that hallucinations were usually
auditory with paranoid
schizophrenia. They could sometimes be visual but not commonly.
According to
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 29
Dr. Semrau, the ways patients respond to hearing voices is
variable and may be
dependent on their degree of insight. Sometimes a patient will
have an
unshakeable belief that the voices are real and authoritative,
i.e. that the things said
are true and that its appropriate to act on the instructions
received from them.
However, sometimes the voices may be experienced as being alien,
evil or
tormenting. Typically, there will be variations in the extent to
which the patient
accepts or rejects what the voices are saying, which can lead to
internal debates as
to whether what the voice says is true, or not, and whether the
voices instruction
should be followed, or not.
[98] With respect to hallucinations, Dr. Semrau noted the
Accuseds report to him
that he had heard a lot of voices in my head for the last few
years. He told Dr.
Semrau that the voices were unknown to him and he did not
recognize them.
However, at one of the last interviews with Dr. Semrau, the
Accused suggested that
at least one of the voices he heard was that of Ricky Sidhu. The
Accused reported
that he heard anywhere from one to 2 voices. Examples of what
these voices
would say would be things like, someones in the closet, or
someone broke their
leg, giving the Accused warnings and information about things.
According to the
Accuseds report to Dr. Semrau, the voices wouldnt usually
command him to do
things but sometimes they would. Sometimes these voices would
command the
Accused to do things that would be wrong to do.
[99] Dr. Semrau testified that the Accuseds conduct of being
very guarded is
quite typical for a paranoid schizophrenic. According to Dr.
Semrau, the difficulties
Dr. Robertson and hospital staff had in obtaining information
from the Accused is
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 30
typical with people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Practical and necessary
things such as putting the Accused in isolation and injecting
him, over his
objections, with medication, could lead to increased feelings of
persecution,
creating a vicious cycle impeding the flow of the information
necessary for a proper
assessment.
[100] On page 4 of his report at paragraph 3, under the heading
Basis of Opinion
- Comments, Dr. Semrau stated:
It is likely that Mr. Sandhus memories of the events surrounding
the offenses have been to some extent distorted by active mental
illness symptoms at the time of the offenses and subsequent
psychotic thought
processes. Thus I did not receive from Mr. Sandhu an entirely
coherent or logical account of his thinking or actions in relation
to these offenses.
This is a very common problem in the evaluation of individuals
who have been actively mentally ill at the time of serious
offenses. In fact if the account provided by an accused of such
offenses is completely clear,
logical and coherent, that in itself raises major concerns
regarding the genuineness of their purported memories of the events
and their
associated mental state. Nevertheless the resulting difficulty
is that a completely satisfying, entirely logical account of
behaviour and mental state is typically not available under such
circumstances, as is the case
with Mr. Sandhu in relation to these offenses.
[101] Under the heading Mental Illness Causation at pages 7 and
8 of his report,
Dr. Semrau provided this explanation regarding the cause of
paranoid
schizophrenia:
Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental disorder which is
incompletely understood, but thought to involve significant
alterations in brain structure,
function and chemistry. There is clear research indicating that
it is a fairly strongly genetic/hereditary disorder, which may be
consistent with
information provided by family members to the effect that Mr.
Sandhus mother has been recently hospitalized with symptoms which
may be similar.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 31
For the most part the onset of symptoms of paranoid
schizophrenia is age-related, typically occurring during teenage
years or the early 20s. However, various factors may precipitate or
accelerate the onset of symptoms, including emotional stresses
generally and some particular
forms of drug use.
[102] At page 8 of his report, under the same heading, Dr.
Semrau stated:
Perhaps even more importantly, there is a history of Mr. Sandhu
making fairly substantial use of marijuana over a number of years.
There are various research studies indicating that although
marijuana is relatively harmless when used in moderation for most
people, for a small minority of
vulnerable individuals, the usage of marijuana (and some other
drugs) can act to accelerate/precipitate the onset of paranoid
schizophrenia
symptoms.
[103] Dr. Semraus opinion regarding the Accused is described on
page 3 of his
report under the heading Opinions Summary/Overview:
(1) Mr. Sandhu has suffered from a serious mental illness for a
number of years, most likely paranoid schizophrenia.
(2) It is very likely that Mr. Sandhu was suffering from active
symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offenses.
(3) It is very likely that Mr. Sandhus behaviour in relation to
the offenses was motivated and determined primarily by paranoid
schizophrenia symptoms.
(4) During the commission of the offenses, Mr. Sandhu was fully
aware at the concrete physical level that he was using a firearm
which
was likely to seriously harm or kill the victims.
(5) Due to paranoid schizophrenia symptoms, Mr. Sandhu
incorrectly believed that he was acting in self-defense.
(6) As a result of the paranoid schizophrenia symptoms, Mr.
Sandhu was unable to properly appreciate the nature and quality of
his acts
and unable to know that they were wrong, either legally or
morally.
(7) Mr. Sandhu continues to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
He requires ongoing psychiatric treatment including medications
in
order to treat these symptoms. Such treatment would be best
provided initially in a secure psychiatric facility until he
hopefully
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 32
improves sufficiently to continue treatment under less
restrictive circumstances.
[104] In Dr. Semraus opinion, the shootings of the victims at
the banquet hall were
the result of paranoid delusions in combination with auditory
hallucinations. He
explained that the chronic paranoid delusions set the stage and
the last straw or
triggering event was the auditory hallucinations - voices
warning him that Mr. Sidhu
was about to kill him - in combination with the idea of
reference interpretation of
Mr. Sidhu having his hands in his pockets, as fidgeting and
reaching for a gun.
[105] In Dr. Semraus opinion, the other shooting victims were
not intended victims
in the Accuseds mind but were persons who ended up getting in
the way of the
Accuseds primary attack on Mr. Sidhu. Dr. Semrau regarded the
shooting of the
other victims as part of the same package as the shooting of Mr.
Sidhu, and that
there was no separate motivation with respect to the shootings
of them.
[106] Dr. Semraus opinion was that the Accused understood that
he was using a
gun that would be likely to harm people. However the Accuseds
acts - in terms of
their purpose - were not properly appreciated by him. Dr.
Semraus opinion was
that the Accused felt the purpose of his acts was pre-emptive
self-protection when,
in fact, they were unjustified acts of violence against innocent
parties. In Dr.
Semraus opinion, the Accuseds appreciation of the nature and
quality of his acts
would therefore have been impaired.
[107] With respect to whether the Accused knew his acts were
wrong, in Dr.
Semraus opinion, the Accused would not have been able to turn
his mind to their
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 33
moral wrongfulness and was therefore unable to know that his
actions were wrong.
Dr. Semraus opinion was that the Accused was prevented from
knowing, or even
from focussing on, the moral wrongfulness of his actions by his
paranoid delusions
combined with the auditory hallucinations. In Dr. Semraus
opinion, the Accused
would only have been able to focus on his perceived necessity to
act as he did.
[108] Asked about the level of confidence he had in his opinions
regarding the
Accused, Dr. Semrau testified that the total body of information
available to him was
of a scope and quality to provide reasonably confident
conclusions. On the other
hand, he also testified that it was not possible to come to a
conclusion about the
Accuseds mental state with a high level of confidence, as
frailties of memory,
distortions and uncertainties were involved with respect to
almost all of the
information he received. Notwithstanding however, that it was
not possible to have
a highly confident conclusion, at the end of the day, he was
still reasonably
confident of his conclusions because of the scope of information
that was available
to him.
[109] Areas that troubled Dr. Semrau in his analysis included
the question of
whether or not the Accused expected Mr. Sidhu to be at the party
or not, and the
Accuseds preparation in terms of putting on the vest and taking
the gun, when he
had never worn the vest before and had rarely taken the gun out
of the house.
According to Dr. Semrau there is no satisfactory answer as to
why both of those
things happened that day. Dr. Semrau described these troubling
points as loose
ends in his clinical analysis, resulting in his conclusions and
opinions being
reasonably confident rather than very confident.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 34
[110] According to Dr. Semraus evidence, when he asked the
Accused why he
brought the gun and vest out with him on this occasion when he
had not done so
before, the Accused said he heard voices telling him to do so
and felt fearful.
[111] Dr. Semrau testified that when he asked the Accused, if he
felt so much fear,
why he didnt simply stay home, the Accused said he didnt know
except he wanted
to do his cousin Dave a favour by being his designated driver.
Dr. Semrau then
asked why he didnt just stay in the car when they arrived at the
banquet hall
parking lot. The Accused again said he didnt know why and could
not explain why
he went inside the party.
[112] Dr. Semrau conceded that these were more loose ends - the
common-
sense inconsistency and illogicality of having such fears and
then taking actions
that would heighten the risk to himself.
[113] However, according to Dr. Semrau, it is not unusual for
there to be loose
ends in a NCRMD determination. He also suggested in his evidence
that these
were really loose ends from the perspective of a sane person.
Dr. Semrau
cautioned against what he described as the trap thinking of
considering what a
sane person would or should do. According to Dr. Semraus
evidence, while these
inconsistencies would stand out to a person of sound mind, a
person with a mental
illness could not be expected to act as rationally. Things
illogical or defying
common sense may fit a person who is delusional and
disorganized, as one cannot
expect logical consistency from a person who is not of sound
mind.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 35
ANALYSIS
[114] Were the acts of the Accused on the night of January 16,
2013 at the
Riverside Banquet Hall committed while he was suffering from a
mental disorder
that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and
quality of his acts or of
knowing that his acts were wrong?
[115] Crown Counsel submits that Dr. Semraus opinions are
dependent on the
information provided to him by the Accused, that the information
from the Accused
is unreliable or fabricated and that the court should be
sceptical of opinions based
on such evidence. Crown Counsel submits that the illogicality
and inconsistencies
in the Accuseds evidence, should lead to adverse inferences
against the Accused
with respect to the issue of his criminal responsibility for his
actions. The Crown
submits that, as a result of such inferences, the Accused has
not met the burden
upon him of overcoming the presumption that he was not suffering
from a mental
disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility.
[116] Where there is a conflict between the evidence of the
Accused and that of
other witnesses, I accept that of the other witnesses. However,
that is not because
I believe the Accused is being dishonest. It is because I agree
with Dr. Semraus
opinion that the Accused may not be a good historian as a result
of his mental
illness. Accordingly, I find that the events that took place at
the Riverside Banquet
Hall on the night of January 16, 2013 unfolded as the Crown
witnesses described
them.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 36
[117] I have considered the Accuseds pre-offence conduct. He had
purchased
the handgun 2 years previously, with the serial numbers deleted.
He had
purchased the bullet-proof vest one year previously. He loaded
the handgun prior
to leaving his house. He brought the handgun and a full extra
clip of ammunition
with him and he wore the vest, the first time he had done all of
those things.
[118] I have considered the Accuseds acts during the commission
of the offences.
He shot Mr. Sidhu at close range. He shot Mr. Sidhu when he was
either hunched
over or on his knees, and while he was crawling and being
dragged under a table.
He attempted to fire the gun 2 or 3 more times with the gun
pointed at Mr. Sidhus
head when it misfired or jammed.
[119] I have considered the Accuseds post-offence conduct. He
fled the scene in
his cousin Davinder Sandhus Honda. He stopped by the side of the
road and,
when Constable Mushi activated his emergency lights and sirens,
he drove off
again, turning into the farmhouse driveway after about 30 or 40
meters. Despite
Constable Mushis warning to him to keep his hands in the air,
the Accused threw
the gun, the ammunition clip, his gloves and a shoe out of the
window of the Honda
before exiting.
[120] Normally, these are all factors that would lead to
inferences of planning,
deliberation and a guilty mind.
[121] Crown provided the case of Faryna v. Chorney, [1951]
B.C.J. No. 152,
where OHalloran, J.A. stated at paragraph 11:
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 37
The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases
of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of
whether the personal
demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the
truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination
of its consistency
with the probabilities which a practical and informed person
would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those
conditions. Only thus can a Court satisfactorily appraise the
testimony of quick-minded,
experienced and confident witnesses, and of those shrewd persons
adept in the half-lie and of long and successful experience in
combining skilful
exaggeration with partial suppression of the truth. Again a
witness may testify what he sincerely believes to be true, but he
may be quite honestly mistaken. For a trial Judge to say I believe
him because I judge him to be telling the truth, is to come to a
conclusion on consideration of only half the problem. In truth it
may easily be self-direction of a dangerous kind.
[122] I have found these comments of OHalloran, J.A. to be very
useful on many
occasions in the past. However, it is my view that they are not
as helpful in
situations where the Court is considering the evidence of
witnesses who are
suffering from active mental illness characterized by
disorganized thinking, paranoid
delusions and hallucinations. The usual inferences that one
might draw from
inconsistency of such evidence with the probabilities that the
practical and informed
person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and
in those
circumstances, may not be fair or appropriate, in the case of
the mentally ill.
[123] Crown submits that the Accused has reconstructed events to
present himself
in a manner that would be more favourable to a finding that he
was not criminally
responsible. Crown submits that the court should not accept the
truth of the
Accuseds evidence as to what was in his head at the time of the
shootings, i.e. that
he was hearing voices that caused him to shoot Mr. Sidhu.
[124] Dr. Semrau, in fact, considered the alternative hypothesis
of the Accused
engaging in post-offence fabrication to excuse his behaviour.
Dr. Semraus opinion
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 38
was that this hypothesis was extremely unlikely, mainly because
of multiple
reasonable sources, including family members, providing evidence
of pre-offence
paranoid behaviours, which was consistent with his favoured
hypothesis that the
Accuseds actions were motivated by paranoid schizophrenia
symptoms resulting in
an inability to rationally appreciate the nature and quality of
his acts, and rendered
him unable to know that they were wrong, either legally or
morally.
[125] I agree that, at the end of the day, whether the Accused
was criminally
responsible for his acts depends on what was going on inside the
Accuseds mind,
when he was shooting his gun that night at the banquet hall.
Even if the Accused
had paranoid delusions that he was being persecuted by Mr.
Sidhu, if he used
those delusions as justification for shooting Mr. Sidhu, whether
out of revenge or as
a means of stopping the persecution, or to pre-empt future
attacks, as long as he
appreciated the nature and quality of his acts and knew that
they were wrong, he
would not be exempt from criminal responsibility.
[126] Dr. Semrau also considered this alternative hypothesis.
However, he found
that, while it was plausible that elements of this alternative
hypothesis could have
been in the Accuseds mind at the time of the shootings, there is
no factual or
evidentiary basis for that view and, in fact, the Accused had
specifically denied the
existence of those elements in his interviews.
[127] The question is whether the Accused was, at the time of
the shootings,
experiencing a range of paranoid schizophrenia symptoms that
included delusions,
disorganized thoughts, ideas of reference and especially
auditory hallucinations -
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 39
voices that he found to be real and compelling, and that caused
him to believe that
he was in imminent danger of being shot by Mr. Sidhu if he did
not shoot him first.
[128] Dr. Semrau testified that it is quite difficult to feign a
mental illness and that
he saw none of that with the Accused. In Dr. Semraus opinion,
the fact that the
Accused would not confirm that voices told him to shoot Mr.
Sidhu, gave more
credence to the information he was providing. Dr. Semrau
testified that in past
cases he had been involved in where hed found fabrication,
feigning of mental
illness or feigning the role of the mental illness in their
offence, those clients had
often said the voices made me do it or I had no control, I had
to obey the voices
or something similar.
[129] An important part of the analysis employed by Dr. Semrau
in coming to his
conclusions was his consideration and rejection of alternative
hypotheses, i.e.
alternative explanations for the Accuseds behaviour that day,
many of which I have
already described above.
[130] The Accused and Mr. Sidhu had not spoken to each other in
over 10 years.
According to Mr. Sidhu they had become virtual strangers to each
other. There was
no recent history of any conflict, animus or hostility between
them or of any serious
conflict of interests. There is no evidence of any motive the
Accused might have
had for his actions that night.
[131] The Accused was known to many of the people attending the
party in the
banquet hall that night, virtually all of whom were longshoremen
or their friends and
family. Many of them knew the Accused, who is also a
longshoreman, from work.
2014
BC
PC
148
(Can
LII)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 40
The Accused made no attempt to conceal his face. Clearly, any
rational person
would have realized that he would be recognized and identified
as the shooter that
night.
[132] The Accused was only a year or two from qualifying for
induction as a union
member himself - a status coveted by all longshoremen. Union
membership would
have afforded the Accused with life-long job security, higher
pay, shift privileges, a
pension and the potential of being able to extend employment as
a longshoreman
to his sons and future generations of sons after that. By his
actions that night, the
Accused has likely lost the ability to ever again work as a
longshoreman again.
CONCLUSION
[133] I have considered the inconsistencies in the Accuseds
evidence and in his
reporting to the experts. I have considered the Accuseds
pre-offence and post-
offence conduct and his actions during the commission of these
offences. I have
considered the inferences that could be drawn from that conduct,
of planning,
deliberation and a guilty mind. I have also considered the
negative inference that
could be drawn from the Accuseds refusal to undergo a
psychological test. I have
then re-considered the potential negative inferences that could
be drawn, in the
context of a person suffering from the severe mental illness of
paranoid
schizophrenia. All three experts who testified at this trial are
ad idem with respect
to that diagnosis of the Accused. Crown counsel has conceded
that this diagnosis
is correct.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 41
[134] Notwithstanding the frailties of that evidence noted
above, the only direct
evidence as to what was going on inside the Accuseds mind at the
time of the
offences, was that from the Accused himself. Other than the
potential negative
inferences that could be drawn that I have noted above, the only
other evidence on
that point is the opinion evidence from the 2 experts who
conducted NCRMD
assessments of the Accused, Dr. Lax and Dr. Semrau.
[135] Both Dr. Lax and Dr. Semrau were aware of, and did
consider, all the
inconsistencies in the Accuseds version of what occurred, the
inconsistencies
between his version and his actions as described by other
witnesses, and
inconsistencies between his version and how he presented (in the
report of Dr.
Lax). Dr. Semrau described these inconsistencies as loose
ends.
[136] Dr. Lax ultimately concluded that he was not able to find,
on a balance of
probabilities, that the Accused was experiencing symptoms of a
mental disorder to
the point that he was unable to know the wrongfulness of his
actions and that it was
not clear to him whether a NCRMD finding would apply to the
Accused. However,
Dr. Lax did acknowledge that such a conclusion was possible. Dr.
Lax, in fact,
stated in his conclusion that symptoms of the Accuseds mental
disorder could very
well have caused him to be unable to know the wrongfulness of
his actions that
night.
[137] Of the expert evidence I have heard at this trial, I find
the opinions of Dr.
Semrau to be the most thoroughly considered, comprehensive and
detailed.
Notwithstanding the opinion of all experts, and the agreement of
both counsel, that
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 42
the Accused suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, Dr. Semrau was
the only expert
to provide the Court with a detailed explanation, and a better
understanding, of this
illness. Notwithstanding that he conducted far fewer interviews
with the Accused
than Dr. Lax, I find that Dr. Semrau was able to obtain more and
better quality
information from the Accused. Dr. Semrau acknowledged that the
Accused was
uncooperative during his first interview of him and that he
obtained no useful
information at that interview.
[138] By the 2nd and 3rd interviews, notwithstanding that the
Accused continued to
exhibit symptoms of an active mental illness, Dr. Semrau was
able to gain some
trust from the Accused and more cooperation, enabling more
reliable information. It
would appear from the evidence, that the interviews conducted by
Dr. Lax, and
particularly the one by Dr. Robertson, did not progress beyond
the level of Dr.
Semraus first interview, in terms of the Accuseds cooperation
and the ability to
obtain useful information from the Accused.
[139] It would appear from the evidence, that Dr. Semrau made it
a priority to gain
the Accuseds confidence for his interviews, to a greater degree
than did Dr. Lax,
and to a far greater degree than Dr. Robertson. In that regard,
I find the 2nd and 3rd
interviews conducted by Dr. Semrau were far more successful than
those of either
Dr. Lax or Dr. Robertson, in terms of obtaining useful
information from the Accused.
I also found Dr. Semraus review of collateral information to be
more thorough,
especially that obtained from the Accuseds family members about
the Accuseds
pre-offence behaviours. Given the difficulty all experts had in
gleaning information
directly from the Accused, I agree that this information from
family members would
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 43
be important to forming reliable opinions about the Accuseds
mental state at the
time of the offenses.
[140] Dr. Semrau was the only expert who carefully considered
all of the
alternative hypotheses that could possibly explain the Accuseds
conduct on the
night of the offences, and compared them, to determine which
hypothesis was the
more probable. In contrast, Dr. Lax did not, in arriving at his
opinion, consider or
evaluate the probability of alternative explanations for the
Accuseds acts on the
night of the offenses. It is therefore not clear, from Dr. Laxs
opinion, that the
NCRMD explanation for the Accuseds acts, is not still the most
probable one. In
my view, it is not possible to arrive at a proper balancing of
probabilities in a
vacuum, without considering alternative hypotheses. There is no
absolute scale for
measuring, passing or rejecting probability.
[141] After considering, weighing and balancing all of the
evidence that I have
heard at this trial, I find that there is no better explanation
for the Accuseds actions
on the night of the offences than the one Dr. Semrau has
provided in his report.
Accordingly, I find that it is more probable than not that, at
the time of these
offenses, the Accused was suffering from a mental disorder that
rendered him
incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts, or
of knowing that what
he did was wrong. I find that the Accused was not, therefore,
criminally responsible
for his acts, as described in Section 16 of the Criminal Code,
with respect to all
counts.
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
-
R. v. Sandhu Page 44
[142] I deem it appropriate, and I do hereby order, that the
Accused now be
referred to the Review Board of British Columbia with respect to
rendering a
disposition. I further order that this decision and copies of
the expert reports that
have been filed at this trial - from Dr. Robertson, Dr. Lax and
Dr. Semrau - be
provided to the Review Board of British Columbia to assist them
in determining the
appropriate disposition with respect to the Accused.
___________________________
P. Chen Provincial Court Judge
2014
BCP
C 14
8 (C
anLII
)
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIAREGINAv.SUKHDEEP
SINGH SANDHUREASONS FOR JUDGMENTOF THEHONOURABLE JUDGE PATRICK
CHENCounsel for the Crown: Mr. Kerr ClarkCounsel for the Defendant:
Mr. Danny MarkovitzPlace of Hearing: Richmond , B.C.Dates of
Hearing: April 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, May 1 & 15,
2014Date of Judgment: July 9, 2014