Constitutional challenge to continue regarding west side shooting

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. Despite not remembering anything, Hills later entered guilty pleas to discharging a firearm into a home with reckless disregard, pointing a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm and mischief under $5,000.

Hypothetical argument

Moving forward, the constitutional challenge will focus on a hypothetical argument about mandatory minimums in similar cases.

As part of defence lawyer Greg White’s submissions during the hearing on Thursday, he had Alan Voth testify as an expert in the analysis of firearms and ammunition. Voth 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 residence.

Jerke’s direction to the Crown and defence on Friday, Nov. 17, is that he wants them to argue if those mandatory minimums are constitutional and if they should apply in all cases.

Sentencing

Following arguments, Hills’ case will proceed to sentencing, based on the subsequent decision from Jerke.

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

Jerke noted that Hills has shown remorse for his actions and that a pre-sentence report prepared for him was very positive. Of the incident in question, Jerke called it, “Bizarre, yet deliberate behaviour, which is unexplained.”

Jerke then ordered the preparation of a Gladue report for Hills, after the Crown pointed out that he has a Métis background. The report will examine how Hills’ Aboriginal heritage may have played a part in his actions.

A date will be set for the hearing to resume on Nov. 27.

by Patrick Burles - @PatrickBurles on Twitter

Constitutional challenge to continue regarding west side shooting

What's Happening