Peter Khill found not guilty
Reactions in courtroom ranged from tears of relief from his supporters to angry swearing from the Styres’ side
AJURY SCREENED FOR POTENTIAL racism has found a white man, Peter Khill, not guilty of any criminal offence after he shot and killed Jonathan Styres, who was Indigenous.
A Hamilton jury decided Khill acted in self-defence at his Binbrook-area home after confronting Styres, from Six Nations, rummaging through his truck at 3 a.m.
Race did not play a role in the shooting, court heard. But from the outset there was a concern it may influence the verdict.
The case has caused legal and political controversy over the issues of perceived racism in the judicial system and the terms of self-defence. Indigenous communities and legal experts across the country followed the two-week trial closely.
The jury foreperson stood in the packed and volatile courtroom at 9:47 a.m. Wednesday after the court again heard the verdict options available to the seven men and five women of the jury: Guilty of second-degree murder; not guilty of second-degree murder but guilty of manslaughter; not guilty. “Not guilty,” the foreperson said.
For a moment the court was silent. Then Khill’s wife, Melinda, who is six months pregnant, began to sob into the arms of her mother.
On the other side of the courtroom, the mother of Styres’ two children wailed loudly and was half-carried out of the courtroom by supporters. Her anguished howling could be heard even after she left the room. Styres’ mom, Debra, wept quietly. Other reactions ranged from Khill’s own deep sigh, to tears of relief from his many supporters, to angry swearing from the Styres’ side of the room.
“Mr. Khill, you are free to go,” said Justice Stephen Glithero.
“Thank you, Your Honour,” replied Khill, who could have faced a life sentence.
But leaving wasn’t that easy.
COURT
SECURITY immediately surrounded Khill in the courtroom, concerned for his safety.
Earlier this week a tense incident between supporters of the Styres’ family and Khill led to heightened security concerns.
Two men swore at Khill in the courthouse hallway and called him a “coward.”
When court security officers tried to intervene, the two men caused a scene by swearing and yelling. They were removed from the building and banned from returning.
After the verdict, the hallway outside the courtroom was lined with police officers brought in off the street to support officers already in the courtroom.
While homicide detectives escorted Styres’ mother, who uses a wheelchair, out of the building, Khill was taken out of a back door of the courtroom — something rarely, if ever, done — to a waiting car behind the courthouse.
Nobody from the Khill family nor the Styres family spoke to the media.
Khill, 26 at the time of the shooting, blasted Styres, 29, twice on Feb. 4, 2016, in the wee dark hours in the driveway of his home.
Khill admitted to shooting and killing Styres, but said he did so because he felt his own life was threatened.
Khill testified that when he confronted him, Styres quickly brought his hands up to “gun height” causing Khill — a former military reservist — to believe he was armed with a gun.
It took the jurors six hours of deliberations, beginning Tuesday afternoon, to come to their verdict. They asked one question about the definition of “a reasonable person” and their actions in the context of self-defence.
The trial heard Khill say his military training kicked in and he did a “double-tap” on the trigger to “neutralize the threat.”
Styres did not have a gun.
It took the jurors six hours of deliberations — beginning Tuesday afternoon — to come to their verdict. They asked one question about the definition of “a reasonable person” and their actions in the context of selfdefence.
After the verdict, Khill’s lawyer, Jeffrey Manishen, said that question indicated to him they were focusing on the right issue, which was “the significance of (Khill’s) military training and the reasonableness of his actions.”
The defence position, all along, was that Khill, a jet engine mechanic, believed he was protecting his life that night. It was never about protecting his property, Manishen said.
During the jury selection process, each candidate was asked a “challenge for cause” question by the defence and the Crown: “Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that the deceased victim is an Indigenous person and the person charged with this crime is a white person?”
All 12 jurors answered “no.”
THE
UNUSUAL QUESTION was posed because of concerns stemming from a similar case in Saskatchewan where a white farmer named Gerald Stanley was acquitted of seconddegree murder in the death of Colten Boushie, who was Indigenous.
Many critics — including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — suggested the all-white jury in that case got the verdict wrong.
At this trial, it has been unclear to most observers if any of the jurors were Indigenous. However, after the verdict, Khill’s defence lawyer Jeffrey Manishen said he believed there were no Indigenous jurors.
“We don’t really have a significant number of Indigenous people on our jury panels,” said Manishen, referring specifically to Hamilton jury pools.
“There’s always an issue of perception — how justice is perceived and how it’s perceived by those who may not get the verdict they want. And even for the public generally.”
Outrage stemming from the Boushie verdict hinged, in part, on the “peremptory challenges” lawyers are able to use during jury selection to veto candidates with no explanation. Some believed the defence at that trial used peremptory challenges to dismiss anyone who appeared to be Indigenous.
Just weeks after the Boushie verdict, Trudeau’s government introduced legislation to eliminate peremptory challenges.
Bill C-75 has now passed second reading.
Manishen said getting rid of peremptory challenges is “wrong-headed.” It would strip away an important legal tool when all that is needed to ensure bias is avoided is to ask a challenge for cause question such as the one used in Khill’s trial.
“It was an excellent approach to dispel any concern about race playing any part in the case,” he said.
“This case may serve to provide some impetus for the federal government to review C-75 and consider perhaps they do not have to do away with peremptory challenges.”
“Mr. Khill, you are free to go.” STEPHEN GLITHERO
Justice presiding over the Khill trial