Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Momin Khawaja was the first Canadian convicted under Ottawa's anti-terror laws. (Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press/Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press)
Momin Khawaja was the first Canadian convicted under Ottawa's anti-terror laws. (Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press/Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press)

Life sentence too harsh in terror case, lawyer tells Supreme Court Add to ...

The life sentence that was imposed on Momin Khawaja, the first person to face charges under Canada’s anti-terrorism law, is unprecedented and should be reduced, the country’s highest court was told on Monday.

Mr. Khawaja, a former Ottawa software developer, was sentenced to 10½ years in prison after his conviction in 2008, but two years later, the Ontario Court of Appeal increased his sentence to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 10 years.

More Related to this Story

Mr. Khawaja’s lawyer urged the Supreme Court to overturn that sentence and re-establish the original penalty.

“I am asking court to say this unprecedented increase in sentence was wrong,” lawyer Lawrence Greenspon argued before the panel.

“A life sentence in this case is unfit for the offence and the offender.”

The Supreme Court will eventually deliver what will likely be a precedent-setting ruling on one of Canada’s most high-profile prosecutions under its anti-terrorism act.

Mr. Khawaja’s appeal is focused on the legal definition of what constitutes “terrorist activity.”

Canada’s terrorism law, enacted two months after the Sept. 11, 2001 al-Qaeda attacks in the United States, includes a controversial section – a so-called motive clause – that requires prosecutors to prove terrorist conduct was performed for political, religious or ideological reasons.

At Mr. Khawaja’s trial, Mr. Justice Douglas Rutherford ruled that the motive provision was unconstitutional, but still ordered the trial to proceed.

In 2010, the appeal court also overturned Judge Rutherford’s constitutional ruling, and it increased Mr. Khawaja’s sentence.

Mr. Greenspon argued that the law is unconstitutional because it violates Mr. Khawaja’s right to express political and religious views. He said the motive clause “will have a chilling effect” on free-speech rights.

But Croft Michaelson, a lawyer with the federal prosecution service, said no evidence has been produced on that point.

He also argued that the free-speech protections offered under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not absolute and do not extend to protecting violence or threats of violence.

The charter guarantees are to “promote and foster dialogue not provide individuals with the means to coerce and intimidate others,” Mr. Michaelson said.

“Terrorism is distinguished by the fact it is committed for political, religious or ideological purpose.”

Mr. Khawaja was convicted in 2008 of training at a remote camp in Pakistan, providing cash to a group of British extremists and offences related to building a remote-control detonator.

The prosecution failed to prove Mr. Khawaja knew the detonator was to be used to set off a 600-kilogram fertilizer bomb in downtown London. But Mr. Greenspon said the appeal court held Mr. Khawaja responsible for that offence when it increased its sentence.

Mr. Michaelson argued that Mr. Khawaja was justly convicted, notwithstanding the striking down of the motive provision at the outset of the trial.

Justice Marshall Rothstein questioned the federal prosecutor over the appeal court’s new finding.

“It does seem that, on appeal, the appellant was convicted of an offence for which he wasn’t tried ... The trial judge deleted the motive clause,” Judge Rothstein said. “We don’t usually allow that on an appeal, do we?”

The justices also pressed Mr. Michaelson on why a motive clause is necessary in the law.

“Part of the flavour of this is ... that this isn’t really necessary, that a lot of countries don’t have it, so why would you put it in there, this motive clause, unless you really wanted to focus on particular minority, religious groups?” said Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

Asked Justice Louis LeBel: “How do you define what is political? What is a political purpose? What’s an ideological purpose?”

The high court is also hearing another terrorism case in conjunction with Mr. Khawaja’s, involving two men wanted in the United States on charges relating to the banned Tamil Tigers organization.

The second terrorism case before the Supreme Court deals with Suresh Sriskandarajah and Piratheepan Nadarajah, who are wanted in the United States on charges relating to the Tamil Tigers.

The two are challenging their extradition to the United States, where prosecutors allege they tried to buy $1-million worth of guns and rockets for the Tigers.

The court reserved judgment Monday after a full day of arguments.

Follow us on Twitter: @globeandmail

Top stories

Most popular video »

Highlights

Most Popular Stories