Peter Khill Gets 8 Years for Manslaughter After the Supreme Court Ordered a New Trial Based on New Self-Defence Guidelines
To the surviving family members of Jonathan Styres, the scales of justice have finally balanced. Seven years have elapsed since Peter Khill fatally shot Styres, who was seemingly attempting to steal Khill's pickup truck parked in the driveway of his home. After three trials (including one mistrial) and several appeals, Khill will go to prison . . . was recently sentenced to 8 years in prison for manslaughter.
You can read about the facts in greater detail here.
At the initial trial, Khill pleaded self-defence and the jury found him not-guilty of second-degree murder. The Crown successfully appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA"), who unanimously ordered a new trial. Khill appealed this decision, but in 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") upheld the ONCA's decision while opining on the proper way to analyze self-defence.
A New Regime for Self-defence in Canada
Self-defence or the use of force to protect yourself against harm, is a legal concept and defence in Canada that is codified at section 34 of the Criminal Code. Under this "Defence of Person" section, the Code provides a complete defence to the actions of an accused if they are reasonable and committed while protecting themselves or another person.
Parliament enacted legislation in 2013 which drastically changed the application of self-defence. The amendments primarily affected the former sections 34-37 of the Criminal Code and were designed to make the law of self-defence more easily understandable and accessible to Canadians.1
In the Khill case, the SCC was mainly focused on the new section 34 as it directly related to accused's claim of self-defence and whether it was reasonable. Justice Sheila Martin, writing for the majority, explained that the initial trial judge improperly instructed the jury on the requirements under the 2013 amendments, thereby invalidating the verdict.2
Section 34(1) (a) to (c): The Three Inquiries
Justice Martin provided an analysis of the three inquiries and conditions to be met under Section 34(1) of the Criminal Code to make out the defence. She characterized the three inquiries as follows:
- The Catalyst – defined as "the accused's state of mind and the perception of events that led them to act." Their state of mind must be based on an "actual belief" which is objectively reasonable.3
- The Motive – defined as "the accused's personal purpose" in committing the crime. This is a subjective, not an objective, inquiry. Justice Martin summed this up in the following way: "If there is no defensive or protective purpose, the rationale for [self-defence] disappears."4
- The Response – the SCC emphasized that this really examines the reasonableness of the accused's response.5
Section 34(2)(c): The Accused's Role in the Incident
Section 34(2) of the Criminal Code provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for the court to consider when looking at whether the actions of the accused are reasonable in the circumstances under s. 34(1)(c).
The key factor that was interpreted in the Khill decision was s. 34(2)(c) – "the accused's role in the incident". The majority defined the accused's role as their "contribution toward something, without necessarily suggesting full responsibility or fault."6
By delineating the accused's role and the extent to which they played it, the SCC reasoned that judges and juries will be better equipped to assess the reasonableness of the response. Crucially, this role can, but does not need to, be characterized by "provocative, unlawful, and morally blameworthy conduct". Triers of fact are to consider the accused's contribution to the incident, then are to evaluate whether their conduct "as a matter of logic and common sense, could tend to make the accused's act more or less reasonable in the circumstances."7
Conclusion
What emerged from this reasoning was that the judge in Khill's first trial did not instruct the jury along these lines. So, the SCC used the Khill appeal as an opportunity to expound on what Parliament intended to do with the new regime, as well as what the amendments to the Criminal Code require of fact-finders. The majority then ruled in favour of a new trial at the Superior Court.
The final trial ultimately resulted in a different verdict from a properly instructed jury: guilty for manslaughter. This means that the jury found Khill's role in the incident led to an unreasonable response, thus vitiating his defence of self-defence.
This blog was co-authored by Summer Law Student, Rachel Weitz.
Footnotes
2. R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37 at paras 4-5.
3. Ibid at paras 52-3.
4. Ibid at para 59.
5. Ibid at para 74.
6. Ibid at para 84.
7. Ibid at para 124.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
