R. v. Abdulle

R. v. Abdulle Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-07-17 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 643 Docket numbers C64201 Judges Benotto, Mary Lou; Trotter, Gary T.; Paciocco, David M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Abdulle, 2018 ONCA 643 DATE: 20180717 DOCKET: C64201 Benotto, Trotter and Paciocco JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Mohamed Farah Abdulle Appellant Mohamed Farah Abdulle, acting in person Concetta Zary, for the respondent Ingrid Grant, duty counsel Heard and released orally: July 11, 2018 On appeal from the conviction entered on November 18, 2015 and the sentence imposed on October 31, 2016 by Justice Robert N. Beaudoin of the Superior Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was convicted of multiple offences under the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, in respect of fraudulent refugee applications – 170 applications in total. After staying some counts in order to comply with the rule against multiple convictions, the trial judge imposed the total sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment less credit for a modest number of days of pre-sentence custody. The appellant appeals his convictions and sentence. [2] In our view, there is no merit in the conviction appeal. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the trial judge’s findings of guilt. The trial judge gave careful reasons in support of his overall conclusions. He evaluated the evidence of each witness and made sound credibility findings. Moreover, the trial judge found that the appellant’s evidence was completely unworthy of belief – a finding he was entitled to make. The trial judge considered all of this evidence within the framework of R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. We see no error. [3] During the oral argument of this appeal, the appellant provided written submissions raising various grounds of appeal. In particular, the appellant suggests that there were problems with the interpretation services he received during his trial. On the basis of the very limited information provided to us on this issue, we are satisfied that the trial judge properly dealt with the interpretation issues as they arose. If there were other issues that troubled the appellant, he ought to have raised them with the trial judge at the time. There is no indication that any of this impacted on the fairness of the appellant’s trial during which he was represented by counsel throughout. We see no merit in these or any of the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in his written materials or in oral argument. [4] The appeal against conviction is dismissed. [5] The appellant also seeks leave to appeal his sentence. He argues that it was too harsh and failed to give effect to the mitigating features present in his case. Again, we disagree. There were many serious aggravating factors in this case including: i. the number of fraudulent applications; ii. the multiple breaches of trust committed by the appellant; and iii. the appellant’s motives of financial gain and enhancing his standing in his community. A sentence emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation was required to address these aggravating factors and to restore faith in the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. The sentence imposed falls within the appropriate range for this type and pattern of offending. [6] Leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal against sentence is dismissed. “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “Gary T. Trotter J.A.” “David M. Paciocoo J.A.”