Background
On New Year’s Eve 2020, a routine traffic stop in Calgary ended in tragedy. Sergeant Andrew Harnett of the Calgary Police Service pulled over a vehicle driven by A.M., a 17-year-old youth, for not having its headlights on. A.M. provided his correct information, including that he only had a learner’s license. As the officers processed information about A.M. and his passengers, it was discovered that the front-seat passenger, Amir Abdulrahman, had outstanding warrants.
Officers detained the youth in the vehicle for approximately30 minutes because their computers were not working properly. Backup arrived and the car was approached by multiple officers. When the officers opened the vehicle door and moved to arrest the passenger, A.M. fled the scene.
Sgt. Harnett grabbed onto the driver’s side of the vehicle.The vehicle became stuck on a berm in the parking lot, and chaos ensued: Sgt. Harnett hit and shouted at A.M., and A.M. attempted to flee and cover his body.A.M. manipulated the car off the berm and then continued driving, accelerating to high speed on a main road, where he shook Sgt. Harnett off the vehicle by moving the car and pushing the door. Sgt. Harnett fell onto the road and was struck and killed by an oncoming vehicle. A.M. abandoned the vehicle and turned himself into police the next day.
The Crown charged A.M. with first-degree murder under s.231(4) of the Criminal Code, which automatically elevates the murder of a police officer to first degree, provided murder is proven.
There was no question that A.M.’s actions caused the death of Sgt. Harnett. However, murder requires a specific intention to kill. The key issue was whether A.M. had actually intended to kill Sgt. Harnett (or cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless about doing so) or, on the other hand, had unintentionally killed Sgt. Harnett.
Outcome
Justice Loparco of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench foundA.M. guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Although A.M.’s actions clearly caused the death of Sgt. Harnett, the Court held that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that A.M. had the specific intention necessary to find that he was guilty of murder, nor had subjective foresight that his actions were likely to result in death.
The judge agreed with the defence that A.M. an immature person in a highly panicked state, focused solely on escaping and not considering the potential lethal consequences of his actions. His flight response was also conditioned by an unstable upbringing in which he had of ten fled from beatings and danger at the hands of his father.
However, the Court did not accept A.M.'s full version of events, including his claim that he saw Sgt. Harnett reach for his gun. Aswell, the physical evidence, including body-worn camera footage and expert accident reconstruction, showed A.M. made multiple attempts to dislodge the officer—including pushing the door and jerking the steering wheel. Still, theCourt found this did not meet the threshold for murder.
Because the officer was acting in the course of duty, had murder been proven, the offence would have been automatically classified as first-degree under the Criminal Code. But since only manslaughter was proven, A.M. avoided the most severe criminal conviction in Canadian law.
Key Takeaways
- Specific and Subjective Intention Standard Upheld:
The case illustrates the high bar for proving murder under Canadian criminal law. Even in the face of a homicide and public outrage, a judge must be satisfied that the accused actually foresaw the risk of death and was at the very least reckless. The Crown's failure to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt led to a conviction on manslaughter, which is an unintentional killing. - Context and Mental State Matter:
Even the worst crimes have a context, and it’s important that the Court and the public understand that context when assessing guilt. Skilled defence counsel need to make sure that context gets before the Court and the public, which is what we worked to do here. This was recognized in the media: https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/teen-charged-with-murder-of-sgt-andrew-harnett-feared-he-would-be-killed-by-officer. The judgment underscores how courts assess intent in light of the accused's age, state of mind, and context.A.M. was 17, in a panic, and facing a stressful confrontation with police. His upbringing conditioned him to react to what he perceived as danger by fleeing.The judge’s decision acknowledges how panic and fear can lead to a person not properly thinking about the consequences of their immediate actions.
- Video Evidence as a Double-Edged Sword:
Body-worn camera footage provided crucial, objective evidence of the incident. It showed both A.M.’s deliberate attempts to flee and his panicked behavior. It played a pivotal role in allowing the judge to analyze the events second by second. This helped establish that the situation was chaotic, and unintentional in respect of causing death, but also that AM did take deliberate actions that he any reasonable person would have known would cause harm, leading to a manslaughter conviction and, later, a serious adult sentence. - Police Officer Protection under s. 231(4): The case reinforces that when a representative of the justice system, such as a police officer, is killed in the line of duty, the law presumes first-degree murder if murder is proven. First degree murder is murder that is planned and deliberate. While this elevates the seriousness of such crimes, it does not override the fundamental Crown requirement to prove specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Public Pressure and Judicial Independence: Despite the high-profile nature of the case and intense media coverage, Justice Loparco applied the law carefully and independently. The judgment demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to legal principles, even when facing public expectations for a murder conviction.
This case serves as a reminder that Canadian criminal law prioritizes fairness and individual assessment, even in the most tragic and emotionally charged cases, and highlights the need for the defence to makestrong legal arguments that assist the judge, as well as to prepare the accused so that they can provide context to the Court and public.