Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Richard Kachkar, killer of Sgt Ryan Russell.

No description

Zain Ahmed

on 12 May 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Richard Kachkar, killer of Sgt Ryan Russell.

Richard Kachkar, killer of Sgt Ryan Russell.
Witness Testimoney
-This trial heard from dozens of witnesses over a six week period including three psychiatrists who testified that Kachkar was psychotic during his two hour rampage. During the rampage, many witnesses heard Kachkar yelling about the Taliban, Chinese technology and saying that “its all a Russian video game.”
-According to the psychiatrist, Kachkar had periodic mental spikes. In 2006 when he woke up in the middle of the night screaming that the devil had possessed him and then slapped his wife.
-If Klassen (psychiatrist) was to categorize Kachkars illness, it would probably be an unspecified psychotic disorder or possibly schizophrenia
-Dr. Klassen spent 10 hours interviewing Kachkar and described him as a man who had business schemes that involved hot dog bakeries, Russian submarines and the Kardashians
- Kachkars friends said that in the days before the homicide, he was behaving differently, sleeping with his arms crossed like a mummy and talking about a white Jesus and cameras being everywhere
- When Paramedics were tending to gunshot wounds, he thought they were putting micropchips in his body
Paroles and Probation
Case Summary
-Only 2 out of 1000 cases in Canada end up with an NCR verdict and the ones that do are high-profile cases which recieve alot of media attention, so yeah, it was controversial.
-One media personality spoke out and tweeted this, " It is really amazing in Canada, it seems if you kill someone and act mentally disturbed your changes of freedom are assured. As if someone who kills somebody is not mentally disturbed… they’re walking around free"
Impact on Canadian Law and Culture
-This case was a turning point in Canadian law, because it made law analysists look at the bill C-54 and look at the flaws that it has. It can be challenged by the Charter and many say it is a knee-jerk reaction to misinformed public outcry about a problem that isn't really existent. (Basically a quick "fix" for something that isnt there)
-The culture of Canada will change because people will look at NCR verdicts and say “is that person really mentally ill?”

Crown Case
- They (the crown) argued that although Kachkar was mentally ill, he knew what he was doing was wrong and was therefore guilty of murder. Furthermore, because he knew the uniformed Sgt Russell was a police officer, Kachkar was guilty of first-degree murder
-They also argued that he deliberately drove the snowplow at Ryan Russell to kill him or cause injuries that would most likely result in death
- It was also said that Kachkar sped up to avoid arrest, and even if he didn't mean to kill Russell, he foresaw his death.
- Lastly the Crown argued that although Kachkar showed signs of mental illness in December 2010 and January 2011, he was able to make rational decisions and plans for the future
Current Status of the Offender
Kachkar is still staying at the Ontario Shores Center for Mental Health Sciences and is granted passes into the community with escorts. He has been out into the community three times.
-The jury reached the verdict in the trial of Richard Kachkar reached the verdict in the third day of deliberations.
-He was neither guilty or not guilty.
-Can anyone guess what the verdict was? He was found _________________ on account of mental disorder on a charge of first degree murder.

Around 5AM on January 12th, 2011, Richard Kachkar ran out of a shelter, barefoot and jacketless through a snowy alley and went to Tim Hortons. He then stole a snowplow and went on a 2 hour rampage, yelling, running into a luxury car dealership and hitting oncoming traffic. Sergeant Ryan Russell followed him, and then Kachkar made a U Turn and headed towards Russells car (who in turn began to reverse his cop car). Russell stopped, and got out of his car and Kachkar accelerated the snow plow. Russell fired 3 shots at him, but Kachkar was not stopped. He drove right into Russell, fracturing his skull and lacerating his brain stem, which killed him on the spot. ETF officers eventually were able to tase and shoot Kachkar so they could arrest him.
Defence Case
- They tried to prove that, on the legally required “balance of probabilities,” Kachkar was not criminally responsible because of his mental illness
- They also argued that Kachkar showed classic signs of mental deterioration in the weeks before the homicide
- It was pointed out that he no longer lives with his wife and 2 children, instead in a St Catharines homeless shelter
- Kachkars friends also raised concern over his behaviour
- Richard Kachkar also sought medical help from a Regent Park doctor for his mental distress the day prior to the crime
- Lastly the defence argued that if Kachkar was found criminally responsible, they should only find him guilty of manslaughter because he did not intend to kill Sergeant Ryan Russell.
Key Evidence
-People found not criminally responsible are sent to mental health insitutions for an undetermined period of time and are released when a review board believes that the person is not a threat to public safety
-The jury had to be convinced that it was more likely than not Kachkar had a mental disorder when he struck Russell, and that it was more likely than not the illness made him do it, which they were
- Thus the NCR verdict.
It was ordered that the accused (Kachkar) be detained at the Secure Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Center for Mental Health Sciences
-April 2014, Kachkar and his defence appealed a year after Kachkar was detained, that he be moved from a secure forensic unit to a general forensic unit but the hospital recommended he stay in a secure unit.
-They also suggested that Kachkar be allowed escorted access to hospital grounds, however the Ontario Review Board went further and ruled Kachkar should be given escorted passes into the community (of Whitby)
-The Crown appealed this decision, saying the decision was unreasonable and that Kachkar could endanger the public
-The Ontario Appeal Court dismissed this appeal, stating that Kachkar posed minimal risk to the public.
The Ontario Review Board file stated that Kachkar may go outside the hospital for neccessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes, access hospital grounds escorted and accompanied by staff and enter the community of Whitby escorted and accompanied by staff.
The local police must be notified when he exercises his permit into the community.
He is to abstain fromany drugs but he must submit on a random basis, a drug test to see if he is taking drugs.
Lastly, he is to refrain from possessing any firearms.
Names of the accused&victim?
Was Kachkar high, mentally ill or drunk at the time of the crime?
Was the verdict was guilty, not guilty, not
criminally responsible?
Full transcript