'Too many unanswered questions' in William Bryant's killing to make NCR ruling, judge says

CBC

4 days ago

Social Sharing
An Ottawa judge has taken the rare step of asking counsel to expand on and clarify some evidence in the 2023 killing of an Amnesty International worker, and said that without it, she's unable to decide whether the man accused of murder should be found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.
Superior Court Justice Anne London-Weinstein told court last week there are still "too many unanswered questions" about the relationship between the victim and the accused, whether the accused might have known what he did was wrong, and whether he might have had a motive.
She also wants to be assured that a forensic psychiatrist who testified conducted a thorough review, and that the matter wasn't "rushed."
William Bryant, 74, was found dead in the stairwell of an apartment building on May 9, 2023. Ahmed Ismail, now 46, who lived in the building, was charged with second-degree murder.
Crown, defence agree on proposed NCR finding
"To state the obvious, this is a murder trial where a 74-year-old man — who, according to his friends, was a kind and gentle person who tried to help others — was brutally and senselessly slashed in the throat and left for dead in a public stairway," London-Weinstein said in court Friday as she explained the reason for her lack of a decision to a courtroom gallery that included people expecting a decision and prepared to give victim impact statements.
"The stakes could not be higher for Mr. Ismail or for the public, who are relying on the court to arrive at the correct conclusion."
Assistant Crown prosecutor Marie Dufort and defence lawyer Richard Addelman jointly proposed at a hearing in April that Ismail should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and the Crown called an expert witness — forensic psychiatrist Dr. Joel Watts — to testify to that effect.
On Friday, London-Weinstein said she's satisfied that Ismail suffers from schizophrenia, resulting in psychosis and paranoid delusions, and added that there's a "significant body of evidence" that Ismail may have been not criminally responsible at the time of the killing because he was incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.
But Watts was not subjected to questioning under cross-examination, and therefore "no critical evaluation of [his] evidence could occur," London-Weinstein said.
Nature of relationship still unclear
The judge repeatedly said Dufort had the best interest of justice in mind by acting as she did in leading Watts's evidence, but that London-Weinstein's role as gatekeeper required her to reach this conclusion.
Things the judge is concerned about include, but aren't limited to:
That there was no explanation for why an original psychiatric opinion was deemed insufficient, requiring Watts to be brought in to provide his opinion.
That the nature of Ismail and Bryant's relationship remains unclear, and some circumstantial evidence suggests it may have been romantic (which, if true, could speak to motive).
That Watts didn't watch Ismail's "critically important" statement to police because the file was corrupted, and that Watts didn't appear to understand the significance of Ismail denying that he knew Bryant at all during that statement (which could speak to knowing that his actions were wrong).
That Watts didn't review other evidence, and that he met with Ismail only once for four hours in jail.
Judges can't order counsel to call specific evidence. An amicus curiae, or friend of the court, could be appointed to ask Watts questions under cross examination, but London-Weinstein said she'd give counsel time to think everything over and suggest how to "cure the deficiencies" in the record at a later date.