Court weighs sentence for convicted pair
Crown asks for eight years in an adult facility; defence says 18 months of time served is sufficient
An Ontario Court judge presiding over the case of two young Hamilton men he convicted of manslaughter in the death of Ali Mohummad must decide not just how long to sentence the pair, but also whether they serve that sentence in a youth or adult facility.
Both young men are now 20 but remain at youth detention facilities because they were 17 at the time of the July 19, 2020, parking lot ambush.
They were ordered into custody in June when Ontario Court Justice Bernd Zabel convicted the pair of manslaughter. Zabel found they organized and participated in the ambush at 310 Limeridge Rd. W. that led to Mohummad’s stabbing death. He ruled the pair will be sentenced as adults.
In court Thursday, assistant Crown attorney Alannah Grady called for an eight-year sentence, minus credit for time already served, at an adult facility. She pointed to the “swarming nature” of the attack in a public parking lot. The pair were “leaders and orchestrators” of the ambush attack.
Three people were stabbed, including Mohummad’s older brother, Hamza Chaudry, and a friend who survived, while another friend required stitches after his head was struck with a rock. The pair was also convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.
“This is a senseless death of a young person with a bright future,” Grady said.
However, defence lawyers Royland Moriah and Jaime Stephenson argued that an 18-month sentence was more appropriate given their youth and “low moral culpability.” After credit for time already served, including a request for credit for time on strict bail conditions, they argue the pair should be released on time-served.
Text messages from Stephenson’s client showed he was surprised when Mohummad was missing — his stabbed body was found hours later. The convicted pair was also hit by a car during the chaotic confrontation.
Court heard that Chaudry and Stephenson’s client had an ongoing conflict that summer over a perceived disrespect. The two sides arranged to meet up in the parking lot where the Hamilton teen group attacked. Moriah noted that his client was there supporting his friend, but there was no evidence either teen brought weapons, told others to bring weapons or had any direct involvement in Mohummad’s death.
Stephenson described the incident as “a mutual agreement to meet, where things clearly got out of hand.”
Placement reports prepared for both young men and presented in court Thursday recommended they be sent to adult facilities, but for differing reasons.
One of the youths had a positive report, showing he did well at the youth facility, including completing his high school diploma and maintaining the highest ranking on the facility’s behavioural level system. The report concluded he had exhausted all programing available and of interest to him, so he should go to an adult facility.
Stephenson said her client is a “role model” in the institution and has thrived there. It makes no sense to send him to an adult facility. She also pointed to his supportive family and prospect of rehabilitation.
The report for the other youth said the facility believes he is a threat to the safety and security of staff and peers. This includes incidents of “peer-on-peer aggression,” threats, bullying and intimidation and “tantrumlike behaviours,” assistant Grady said in court Thursday.
This young man also faces charges of breaching bail.
His lawyer, Moriah, said he had some concerns about information in the placement report, including conflicting information from other reports. He is seeking clarity, including institutional reports, before he can complete sentencing submissions.
The case is scheduled to return briefly March 13.
A third youth charged with second-degree murder in the case was acquitted in a separate trial that concluded last week.
The report for the other youth said the facility believes he is a threat to the safety and security of staff and peers