The Supreme Court orders a new trial due to insufficient jury instructions.

Mr. Ahmed Abdullahi was arrested in June 2013 as a result of an integrated police investigation into the trafficking of illegal firearms in Toronto. A jury convicted him of various firearm offences and one count of participation in the activities of a criminal organization for the purpose of trafficking weapons, contrary to section 467.11 of the Criminal Code. This last conviction was the only issue before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Under section 467.11, the Crown must first prove the existence of a “criminal organization”. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization as a group of three or more people, however organized, that facilitates or commits a serious offence for a financial or other benefit. Organized crimes attract greater police powers for certain authorizations and warrants, and harsher sentences than those committed by groups that come together randomly to commit a single offence. In its 2012 judgment in R. v. Venneri, the Supreme Court of Canada said that for a criminal organization to be “organized”, it must have “some form of structure and degree of continuity”.

Before members of the jury started their deliberations, the trial judge instructed them on the required elements of the criminal organization offence, including the need to first prove the existence of such an organization. On that element of the offence, the judge read the definition of a criminal organization but did not mention the need to identify a structure and a degree of continuity to qualify a group as such. In the end, the jury found Mr. Abdullahi guilty on all counts, including that of participating in the activities of a criminal organization for the purpose of trafficking weapons.

On appeal, Mr. Abdullahi argued the judge’s instruction to the jury was insufficient because it failed to explain that a criminal organization must have structure and continuity. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and concluded that the jury had been properly instructed. The dissenting judge disagreed and would have ordered a new trial on that count. Mr. Abdullahi appealed the conviction to this Court.

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal.

The trial judge’s instruction did not sufficiently equip the jury to decide if a criminal organization existed.