Verdict for accused in 2010 Nunavut killing expected in February

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Nunavut Court Justice Neil Sharkey said by the end of February, he will decide the fate of Colin Makpah, who stood trial this year for manslaughter in the 2010 death of Donald James Gamble in Rankin Inlet.

Sharkey, who presided over the judge-alone trial this past spring, announced at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit Dec. 17 that he will rule on the case by the end of February.

Sharkey requested that both defence and Crown lawyers return to court in Iqaluit on Feb. 2, at which time he will be able to schedule an exact date for delivering the decision—likely to be read in an Iqaluit courtroom.

Makpah, whose presence was not needed in court Dec. 17, is not expected to attend court on Feb. 2 either, Sharkey said.

But Makpah must be present when the ruling comes down, the judge said.

“If there’s an acquittal, Makpah will simply go home. But otherwise, he’ll be taken into custody,” Sharkey said.

Sharkey said he is still awaiting full transcripts of the final arguments put forth by both the defence and Crown lawyers in November.

During those final arguments, Sharkey said this case hinges on self-defence and whether Makpah’s actions were reasonable given the circumstances.

Makpah testified at his trial that he attempted to break up a fight in a friend’s apartment when Gamble attacked his own girlfriend, Sheryl-Lynn Outchikat, and then attacked a third man in the apartment.

According to his statements in court, Makpah said he attempted to intimidate Gamble by telling him that he was going to get a knife, and by subsequently going to the kitchen and returning with the knife.

Gamble then attacked Makpah, according to multiple testimonies, pinning him to the ground.

Outchikat testified she smashed a vodka bottle over Gamble’s head as Makpah lay pinned to the ground beneath him. Shortly thereafter, while still pinned to the ground, Makpah stabbed Gamble.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, an accused person can claim self-defence after an offence if “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstance”.

But defining “the act committed” can be tricky.

Defence lawyer Shayne Kert and Crown lawyer Faiyaz Amir Alibhai sparred over what “the act” was in this case.

Kert argued that the committed act was the stabbing itself, because Makpah did not intend to use the knife until he found himself pinned beneath a larger, stronger Gamble.

But Alibhai argued that the act committed was getting the knife in the first place. Introducing a weapon into what was, until that point, a “minor scuffle” was unreasonable, Alibhai argued.

Overall, Sharkey must weigh nine factors in deciding if Makpah’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, including what other means of self-defence were available, and how imminent the threat of violence in the situation was.

Manslaughter, defined as an unlawful killing without intent to cause death, carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but carries no minimum penalty unless a firearm is used.