New trial ordered for Peter Khill
Binbrook man was acquitted in the 2016 killing of Jonathan Styres during a driveway confrontation that was ruled self-defence
Ontario’s Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for a Binbrook man who was acquitted of murder after gunning down an unarmed Indigenous man during a driveway confrontation in the early hours of Feb. 4, 2016.
Peter Khill was found by a jury in 2018 to be acting in self-defence when he hit Jonathan Styres of Six Nations in the chest with two shotgun blasts from close range as Styres appeared to be attempting to steal a truck from Khill’s driveway.
But three Court of Appeal judges unanimously ruled Wednesday that the trial judge, Superior Court Justice Stephen Glithero, erred during part of his instructions to the jury about whether or not Khill’s actions could be considered reasonable.
During the trial, the jury heard that Khill, now 30, was a former army reservist with military training. He awakened to a couple of loud bangs at around 3 a.m., went to his bedroom window and saw the dashboard lights on inside his truck.
Khill grabbed a shotgun he kept in the bedroom and quietly slipped outside in bare feet clad only in a T-shirt and boxer shorts despite it being the middle of winter.
Khill stealthily made his way to the passenger door of his truck. He yelled “Hey, hands up,” and Styres, startled, turned toward him, raising his hands to “gun height,” according to Khill.
Khill believed, wrongly, that Styres had a gun in his hand and quickly fired two blasts, court heard. Khill went inside the house as his partner was speaking to a 911 operator, then went back outside and administered CPR for several minutes to no avail.
Khill’s military training as a reservist played a significant role in the trial as he explained how his
training guided his decision to arm himself and confront the intruder. He testified he believed he was facing “a life or death situation.”
But Khill also acknowledged he could have simply called 911 once he heard the noises and waited for police to arrive. And given that Styres turned out to be unarmed, Khill’s decision to bring a shotgun with him proved to be a crucial factor.
The appeal judges ruled Glithero failed to properly instruct the jury to consider Khill’s role in the incident in assessing the reasonableness of the shooting.
“The jury was not told that they must consider Mr. Khill’s conduct during the incident that ended with Mr. Styres’ death and Mr. Khill’s responsibility for the confrontation when assessing the reasonableness of Mr. Khill’s shooting of Mr. Styres,” the appeal judges ruled.
“Mr. Khill’s role in the incident leading up to the shooting was potentially a significant factor in the assessment of the reasonableness of the shooting.”
The judges allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered Khill to stand trial again on a charge of second-degree murder.
Michael Lacy, one of Khill’s appeal lawyers, said Khill is considering his options including the possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“Peter has consistently maintained he was acting in self-defence and was not guilty of any crime,” said Lacy.
Khill’s acquittal in 2018 sparked an outcry from nearby Indigenous communities about the sensitive issue of the racial composition of juries and the possibility of bias.
The verdict in the Khill case came just months after the racially-charged case of Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley.
He was acquitted of fatally shooting Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man, by what appeared to be an allwhite jury after the defence was accused of using special challenges to exclude Indigenous people from the jury.
Lindsay Hill, Styres’ partner, stated the Court of Appeal’s decision “felt like a weight had been lifted off of me.”
“I am relieved to get some good news, especially after having to overcome everything that happened at the trial,” Hill stated.
“This is not justice but rather a step towards getting the justice we all deserve,” Hill stated. “Although the order of a new trial is good news, it does not guarantee the accountability of Peter Khill’s actions.
“We must still continue this important call for reform and overhaul of the justice system in Canada.”
In a statement, the Six Nations of the Grand River chief and council applauded the Court of Appeal’s decision, but noted “there is still a long and difficult journey ahead.”
“Today is an important first step on the road to justice for Mr. Styres, his family, and his community,” the statement reads.
“Knowing that the justice system recognizes that it did not achieve justice for Mr. Styres is an indicator that we are on the right path.”
Khill is still facing a civil lawsuit launched by Styres’ relatives, which seeks more than $2 million in damages.