Arguments delayed in constitutional challenge surrounding west side shooting

White added that he would be consulting with Alan Voth, who testified in November as an expert in the analysis of firearms and ammunition, saying further tests may be required. Because of Voth’s schedule, the tests likely wouldn’t begin until June and would be followed by the preparation of a report detailing his findings.

After White noted that they were willing to waive their Jordan rights – which set deadlines for a case to be resolved – the Crown agreed to an adjournment to June 25, at which point a new timeline to argue the case is expected to be put in place.

Following the defence submissions and testimony from Voth in November of 2017, Justice Rodney Jerke told the Crown and defence that he wants them to argue if the mandatory minimums are constitutional and if they should apply in all cases.

Once Jerke has heard those arguments and makes a decision, the matter will then proceed to sentencing.

The Crown has already recommended a term of four to five years in prison.

Facts of the case

Hills admitted that on May 6, 2014, he consumed a significant amount of alcohol at a barbecue after having taken a strong painkiller to help with backpain. Around midnight he began walking in the area of Mount Rundle Way and Mount Rundle Road West, carrying a baseball bat and a rifle.

An individual leaving a party in his car observed Hills – who he did not know – and as he passed, Hills swung the bat at his vehicle, but missed. The driver stopped and turned back, at which point Hills fired a shot. Believing the shot was at him, the driver then fled the area and called 911.

Hills proceeded to smash out all the windows of a car with his bat. He then fired three shots into a home with a .303 high-powered rifle, while a family of four was inside. Fortunately, no one was injured.

The next morning, Hills woke up in a Lethbridge Police Service holding cell, saying he has no memory of what happened or why he did it.

Constitutional Challenge

The constitutional challenge focuses on a hypothetical argument about mandatory minimums in similar cases.

As part of the defence submissions last November, Voth testified that he built a wall using materials that were the most susceptible to perforation, and which also happen to be the most common for exterior walls of homes in Canada. He then fired multiple rounds into the wall from an airsoft pistol, a bb gun, a paintball marker, multiple pellet rifles, a pellet pistol and a .22 calibre rifle.

The bullets from the .22 rifle were the only ones to break through the wall, with the bbs, pellets and paintballs all failing to get through.

Voth noted that two of the pellet rifles and the pellet pistol are considered firearms under the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

As such, the mandatory minimum would apply if those weapons were fired at a residence.

by Patrick Burles - @PatrickBurles on Twitter

Arguments delayed in constitutional challenge surrounding west side shooting

What's Happening