Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group K/Case overview

Case Overview
R v Khawaja was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012. Facts: -	the accused was charged with 7 offences under the Terrorism section of the Criminal Code, which deals with terrorism and was put in place following 9/11. -	the accused was born in Ottawa and spent some years living in other countries (predominantly Muslim ones) before coming back to Canada with his family at age 17. He was 25yrs old when he was charged. -	The London police and British Security Service had an ongoing investigation, “Operation Crevice” and determined that the accused, while in London, met with Omar Khyam, the leader of a known terrorist group. The discussion was around a remote explosive detonator device that the accused was building for Khyam to use. -	The accused was arrested by the RCMP March 29 2014 and charged under the Criminal Code with terrorism-related offences. The evidence: - The Crown produced evidence that the accused had travelled to Pakistan to take part in terrorist activities o	The Crown also had many emails that the accused sent that demonstrated his desire to be part of the jihad, training in warfare, and other types of violence o	The emails also expressed devotion and honour to the terrorists of 9/11 as well as to Osama Bin Laden o	A US citizen who was convicted of terrorist activity, ‘Babar’, testified against the accused and told of how the accused and Khymer had trained together in a camp in Pakistan on how to use explosive devices o	The accused allowed Khymer and others in the group to stay at his parent’s home in Pakistan o	The accused also wired money to them in the UK, after recruiting a muslim young woman to wire the money o	Another email outlined how the accused was working on a remote detonator device with the intention of smuggling it into London At trial: At trial the accused was convicted on counts 3 through 7. At the Court of Appeal: The appeal at the Court of Appeal was dismissed. At the Supreme Court: “(1) that the provisions in Part II.1 of the Criminal Code under which he was convicted violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are unconstitutional; (2) that the provisions were misapplied or misinterpreted, resulting in an unfair trial or an unreasonable verdict; and (3) that the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in imposing his sentence.” (At para 1. of the case)