Two men in Via Rail terror plot seeking new trial

Two men found guilty of terrorism charges after being accused of plotting to derail a passenger train are asking Ontario’s highest court to grant them a new trial.

The men are arguing the jury that convicted them was improperly selected.

Lawyers for Raed Jaser argue the judge who oversaw the case made several errors, including in rejecting their client’s request as to the method of jury selection.

Jaser’s co-accused, Chiheb Esseghaier, continues to be selfrepresented but a lawyer appointed to assist him through the legal process agrees the jury was not properly constituted and says a new trial must be ordered for both men.

Though Jaser has raised several other grounds of appeal, the court has said it will first weigh the issue of jury selection before considering the others.

The challenge is expected to be heard in a Toronto court on Tuesday.

Jaser and Esseghaier were found guilty in 2015 on a total of eight terror-related charges between them.

They were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole until 2023.

The Toronto judge who presided over their trial found both men had not renounced their extremist beliefs, nor had they accepted responsibility for their offences.

Esseghaier, a devoutly religious Muslim, often interrupted court proceedings with rambling speeches and at times prayed in the prisoner’s dock.

His mental state was raised during the sentencing phase of the trial.

In documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, Jaser’s lawyers said the law regarding jury selection was in flux during the trial, but over time the interpretation used by the trial judge has been found to be wrong.

The lawyer assisting Esseghaier said in documents filed for the appeal that the trial judge should have sought to balance the interests of both men rather than impose a process he considered best.

“No doubt trials involving self-represented accused persons are difficult trials for judges to preside over,” the lawyer wrote.

“This trial was made even more difficult by the fact that Esseghaier at the time did not recognize Canadian law and wanted to be tried under the Qur’an,” the lawyer added.

“This difficulty, however, does not justify trial judges failing to advert to the statutory rights of self-represented accused persons, or treating their rights as any less important than the rights of accused persons represented by counsel.”

Both men also previously indicated they wished to challenge their sentences, which Jaser argued in his notice of appeal was “excessive, harsh and unfit in all the circumstances.”

PAOLA LORIGGIO