Skip to main content

Peter Khill leaves a Hamilton courthouse on June 11, 2018.

Glenn Lowson/for The Globe and Mail

A Hamilton-area homeowner who gunned down a would-be car thief seconds after confronting him in the dead of night succeeded on Thursday in getting the country’s top court to hear his case.

The Supreme Court agreed to weigh in at the request of Peter Khill, who was initially acquitted of second-degree murder in the killing of Jon Styres on Feb. 4, 2016. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered him to stand trial again, prompting him to seek leave to appeal.

Mr. Khill, of Binbrook, Ont., successfully argued at trial he was acting in self-defence when he twice shot Mr. Styres, of Ohsweken, Ont., outside his semi-rural home.

Story continues below advertisement

He maintained his four years of training as an army reservist had kicked in when he instinctively grabbed a loaded Remington shotgun in his bedroom, and went barefoot outside into the frigid darkness wearing a T-shirt and boxers to confront Mr. Styres.

Within seconds of spotting Mr. Styres leaning into his 15-year-old pickup truck, Mr. Khill yelled, “Hands up!” and opened fire twice from just a few metres away. He hit Mr. Styres, 29, squarely in the chest. Mr. Styres had no gun but may have had a screwdriver.

Only then did Mr. Khill’s girlfriend call 911 from the property on the edge of Hamilton.

Mr. Khill, who was 26 at the time, testified in his own defence that he had no choice but to open fire on the father of two from the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve, about 30 minutes away.

“It was a real-life threat assessment,” Mr. Khill testified. “I felt that I was being threatened and I felt that I was not in control of the situation.”

A person is allowed to use reasonable force to alleviate a threat to themselves or others.

On initial appeal of the June 2018 acquittal, the prosecution argued that Superior Court Justice Stephen Glithero had failed to instruct the jury properly about Mr. Khill’s role in the confrontation that led to the shooting.

Story continues below advertisement

The Court of Appeal agreed, saying Mr. Khill’s actions were a potentially significant factor in whether his opening fire was reasonable.

“The trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Mr. Khill’s conduct during the incident leading up to the shooting of Mr. Styres when assessing the reasonableness of that shooting,” Justice David Doherty wrote for the appellate court. “(It) left the jury unequipped to grapple with what may have been a crucial question in the evaluation of the reasonableness of Mr. Khill’s act.”

The case initially took on racial overtones because Mr. Styres was Indigenous, although there was no evidence Mr. Khill knew that when he opened fire.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Follow related topics

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons or for abuse. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies