R v.

Goudie, Robert
Justice Bloomenfeld: So Mr. Goudie has an information alleging assault, bodily harm,
and a count of failure to provide the necessities of life. I am going to withdraw the
second count at this point in time and its going to be a non-guilty free as charged
(00:40) we have some agreed facts...its a joint submission
Justice: Mr. Edwards said that it was possible that the constable would want to
have a brief discussion in chambers neither of you believed that, thats necessary
is that correct?
And Mr. Clewley another thing, Mr. and I worked in the same office many, many
years ago. I just wanted to put on record and ensure that the crown holds that
1:10
1:35
Justice: Alright so just that I am clear, the interpretation is that Mr. Clewley, and Mr.
Robert and Mr. Bulmerthere will be a not-guilty plea to count 1 on the information
which is assault causing bodily harm, but a guilty plea to the included offence of
assaulting is that correct?
Defence: Yes, that is correct
Justice: So Mr. Goudie, you are aware that you have a right to a trial, and you will be
giving that right up to enter a guilty plea, and youre pleading guilty of your own
free will. You dont feel pressured by anyone of anything to plead guilty.
After you have entered the plea, Mr. Bulmer is going to provide me with the
summary of the facts the crown is relying upon for a summary of guilt
2:15
Justice: I will ask you to listen closely. I will ask Mr. Clewely to add anything he thinks
is relevant. But I will be asking you directly whether or not what the crown has said
to me is the truth, do you understand?
Now I have been advised by counsel that they all agree what the right sentence is,
they know that I dont need to accept their recommendation. Ill take everything
they say very seriously but in the end its my decision, and Ill order the sentence
according to my understanding and my views. Do you understand that as well?
2:45
Justice: Alright thank you very much. Wish to proceed?
Const: Robert Goudie you stand charged on or about the 31 st day of October on the
year of 2015 in the Toronto region, for committing theft, an assault upon Hamsa
Sheek,
caused bodily harm to him contrary to section 267 (17) of the criminal code of
Canada.
3:20
Justice: How does the crown like to proceed?
Crown: Summarily please
Clerk: And how do you plead to the charges read, guilty or not guilty?
Defense: We plead not guilty to your Honour but guilty to the lesser offence of
simple assault
3:33
I am heading up two documents; one is ..theyre identical, I have asked
Your Honor on October the 31st 2015 just past 4 am, Mr. Hamsa Sheek was driving
his car home to 10 Gordon Rich Place in Toronto. This address is a community
housing complex.
4:03
At some point in time before, Mr. Sheek entered the parking lot at that
address, which was a midrise apartment complex. His driving had caught
the attention of the Defendant, who was patrolling the area in his capacity
as a Sargent with the Toronto Police Service.
Based on his observations, the Defendant formed a belief that Mr. Sheik
was driving while impaired. The Defendant was operating a marked
Toronto Police sports utility vehicle
4:32
The parking area of 10 Gordon Rich place was surveilled by recording
security cameras. The interaction between the Defendant and Mr. Sheik
was captured by such a camera albeit from a distance and in lower quality
video. No sound is recorded from this camera. Mr Sheik parked forward in
the parking lot at the rear end of the complex and got out of his car.
5:00
Seconds after Mr. Sheik parked his car, the Defendant pulled in behind and
parked. The Defendant got out of the police SUV and approached Mr. Sheik
who was standing at his open car door. The two men engaged in
discussion for approximately 33 seconds at which time the Defendant took
hold of Mr. Sheik and forced him down onto the ground on the grassy
boulevard in front of the car.
5: 29
The Defendant stayed on top of Mr. Sheik pinning him with his right knee
for about 20 seconds and appeared to search him. The Defendant then
released Mr. Sheik and returned to Mr. Sheiks open car door. After looking
into the car using his flashlight, the Defendant removed a crutch and
tossed it toward Mr. Sheik., at this he remained motionless on the grass.
The Defendant believed at that time that Mr. Sheik was conscious. The
Defendant returned to his police vehicle and left the scene.
5:59
The Defendant did not report the stop, and at no time did he arrest Mr.
Sheik. The total interaction between the Defendant and Mr. Sheik from the
Defendants arrival to departure from the scene was 7 minutes. The
incident was partially witnessed by a resident of the complex. His
observations began when Mr. Sheik was already on the ground. Mr. Sheik
remained on the ground as left by the Defendant for 30 minutes, at which
point at Toronto Police car and Toronto paramedic ambulance arrived in
response to the emergency police call.
6:33
The paramedics and police found Mr. Sheik lying on the ground wearing a
neck brace and a walking crutch lying nearby. Paramedics noticed a strong
odour of alcohol as well as signs of impairment on Mr. Sheik. Mr. Sheik was
triaged by the paramedics and transported to the Scarborough General
Hospital for assessment of any injuries. Mr. Sheik refused assessment and
voluntarily left the hospital without seeing a doctor.
7:02
Mr. Sheik had pre-existing spinal injuries. The Crown is incapable of
proving that the Defendants application of force to Mr. Sheik caused any
bodily harm to him. Mr. Sheik claimed he had no memory of the assault
incident, and only reported it after he was informed by the eyewitness
neighbour of the facts. On November 2nd, 2015, three days the incident,
Mr. Sheik attended his family doctor and reported that he had been
assaulted.
7:30
At that appointment Mr. Sheik made no complaint of any injury from that
incident, and he no symptoms of any type of head injury. Although the
Defendant had reasonable grounds to address Mr. Sheik for impaired
driving, at no time during their interaction was an arrest effected. The
Defendants application of force on Mr. Sheik was unjustified and
excessive and amounts to assault found on s(266) of the Criminal Code.
Those are the facts.
Justice: Is there anything youd like to add for us Mr. Goudie?
Goudie: No.
Justice: Mr. Goudie can you stand Sir, please? Are all those allegations
true?
Goudie: Yes
Justice: ..with respect to the agreement of facts I have corrected the three
tactical errors noted by the Crown