Murder, manslaughter or acquittal?
Jury deliberates as to whether Umar Zameer intentionally ran over and killed police constable
The jurors deciding whether or not Umar Zameer deliberately ran over and killed Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup in the parking garage below Nathan Phillips Square were each given 143 pages of instructions to help guide the decision-making process.
It took Justice Anne Molloy about eight hours to read her charge, which touched on everything from the irrelevance of outside information to summaries of witness testimony — including that of Zameer, his wife, two collision reconstruction experts and plainclothes Toronto police officers.
Jurors began deliberations at 5 p.m. Thursday and continued Friday until 8 p.m. They will resume their discussions Saturday morning in the downtown courthouse a short distance from the underground lot where the horrific event took place.
During the four-week trial — often when the jury was absent — the judge made no secret of her opinion on the strength of the Crown’s case for a first-degree murder conviction, even predicting its ultimate rejection by jurors.
Here are the key takeaways from Molloy’s instructions to the jury on their upcoming verdict:
First-degree murder
The way Northrup died on July 2, 2021, was almost immediately described as an act of first-degree murder under Canadian law, with police chief James Ramer telling the media the officer’s death was “an intentional, deliberate act.”
Murder is first-degree murder when it is planned and deliberate and the accused person intended to kill another person. But a murder also automatically becomes a firstdegree murder charge when the victim is a police officer acting in the course of his or her duties.
In this case, the defence argued Zameer didn’t know Northrup — dressed in plainclothes — was a police officer; under the law, the Crown must prove Zameer knew he was an officer. (After jurors sought clarification on this point, Molloy told them Friday their focus should be on the likelihood that Zameer knew Northrup was an officer, given a preponderance of evidence he did not.)
At trial, Northrup’s police colleagues testified he and his partner clearly identified themselves, saying “Stop! Police,” before Zameer made a series of intentional moves to run Northrup down head-on as he was standing up in a laneway in the parking garage. But their accounts were contradicted by the rest of the prosecution’s evidence — including a Toronto police collision expert — Molloy told the jury.
“There is no evidence that fully supports the Crown’s theory,” she said, echoing comments she made throughout the trial in the absence of the jury.
“It is clear from the video that Officer Northrup was not standing upright in the laneway when he was knocked to the ground and run over, even though the three police witnesses all say that he was,” she told the jury.
At trial, defence lawyer Nader Hasan accused the officers of lying and colluding to put forward matching — false — accounts of what happened.
In courtroom conversations with defence and Crown lawyers — with the jury not present — one officer testified he and a handful of other officers later sat together to write up their notes on the incident. This prompted Molloy to quip they’d engaged in a “note-writing party.”
The officers all denied collusion; in her closing address, prosecutor Karen Simone said there was no reason for any of them to lie.
In her instructions to the jury, the judge left little doubt as to her position.
“Ladies and gentlemen, it is possible for one officer to have a memory of Officer Northrup standing in front of the vehicle in the middle of that laneway with his arms raised to his chest level and his palms outstretched, even if that memory is not accurate. It is for you to decide if it is possible for three officers to have that same mistaken memory.”
Acknowledging the strength of the officers’ accounts, the Crown put forward a last-minute alternate theory for first-degree murder, arguing Northrup was hit in another location entirely.
This theory, Molloy told the jury, was inconsistent with both the police witnesses and the experts. The scenario was “not even put by the Crown to their own expert to see if it could be possible in light of the physical evidence,” she said, reading her final instructions to the jury Thursday.
Nevertheless, the judge explained, first-degree murder is still an option for the jury to consider.
In order to reach that verdict, jurors would have to find that Zameer committed an unlawful act; that he intended to kill Northrup, or meant to cause him harm he knew could be fatal; and that he knew Northrup was a police officer acting in the course of his duties.
“Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved all these elements, you must find Mr. Zameer not guilty of first-degree murder,” Molloy said.
Second-degree murder
Normally, second-degree murder is not an option in the death of a police officer, however, the facts of this case open the door to reasonable doubt on the key element that would elevate the charge — that Zameer knew Northrup was a cop.
At trial, Zameer and his wife said they believed they were being approached by criminals, testifying they had no knowledge Northrup was a police officer until he was already dead.
Molloy explained to the jury that if they are not satisfied that Zameer knew Northrup was a police officer, they can consider second-degree murder instead.
The key issue for this charge is Zameer’s intent, Molloy said. “It is an essential element of the offence of second-degree murder that Mr. Zameer either meant or intended to kill Officer Northrup when he ran him down, or that he intended to cause him harm that he knew was likely to kill him and was reckless as to whether he was killed.”
The defence case — which Molloy noted was supported by both defence and prosecution experts — was that Zameer couldn’t see Northrup downed on the ground when he drove forward over him, and therefore had no intent to cause Northrup harm, let alone kill him.
Molloy explained: “If you believe (Zameer’s) evidence, and any other exculpatory evidence that supports his evidence, that is a complete answer to the second-degree murder charge and you must find him not guilty.”
Manslaughter
A manslaughter verdict is possible because it is a “lesser included offence” to murder.
“The form of manslaughter that applies in this case is called ‘unlawful act manslaughter,’” Molloy explained to the jury, outlining that a manslaughter verdict requires three key elements.
First, that Zameer committed an unlawful act — in this case, dangerous driving; second, that this act caused Northrup’s death; and third, that a reasonable person would realize this unlawful act would expose someone else to risk of bodily harm.
Establishing that Zameer committed dangerous driving is not straightforward, Molloy told the jury: “You must focus on the manner of the driving, not on the tragic consequences.”
Further, she said, the jury must consider whether Zameer’s actions — to escape people he said he believed were violent criminals — were justified, even if objectively dangerous.
The judge explained:
“The question must be considered from the perspective of an ordinary person with his characteristics and experience. It was late at night and he was in a deserted area with his pregnant wife and two-year-old. A stabbing had recently taken place nearby. He is a brown, Muslim man. His wife was wearing a hijab and he was aware that a month earlier a Muslim family, including children and women wearing hijabs, had been run down in London, Ont.”
Acquittal
It is not a crime in Canadian law to kill someone — even a police officer — in self-defence or by accident; those are the key words in Zameer’s defence.
The defence theory is Zameer accidentally killed Northrup, Molloy explained, summarizing the defence case in its own terms:
“Mr. Zameer had no idea that Officer Northrup had fallen to the ground … All of Mr. Zameer’s driving manoeuvres were aimed at getting away from the people whom he thought were attacking his family — in the opposite direction of where they were. The first thing Mr. Zameer did when he was at a safe distance from them was to tell his wife to call 911 to get help … The Crown’s theory that Mr. Zameer intentionally killed a police officer, in front of his wife and child, defies all common sense.”
If the jury accepts that theory, the only possible verdict is acquittal on all charges, Molloy explained.
But even if jurors reject that Northrup’s death was an accident, Zameer could still be acquitted if they find he acted in self-defence.
On Friday morning, the judge clarified for the racially diverse jury — the majority of them appearing to be in their 20s and 30s — a small section of her final charge relating to whether Zameer knew Northrup was a police officer.
They then left the courtroom where they were told to expect copies of her legal instructions. (In case there were any typos, she wanted them to know she had written every word herself.)
The jury’s deliberations continue. Their decision must be unanimous; in Canadian courts, jurors do not explain the reasons behind their verdicts.