Don’t compound tragedy ‘with an injustice’ defence says during closing arguments in Zameer murder trial

Was Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup’s death the result of a tragic accident born out of fear, misunderstanding and confusion, or the intentional actions of a killer?

That burdensome question will soon be in the hands of a jury after closing arguments in the murder trial of Umar Zameer took place on Wednesday.

Defence lawyer Nader Hasan was first to address the court, asking jurors not to compound tragedy “with an injustice.”

Hasan reiterated what’s he said all along – that Northrup’s death was the result of a “horrific accident.”

He said Zameer, who had done nothing wrong, was entitled to leave when police approached him in the underground parking lot at Toronto City Hall, but instead he was boxed in, in what Hasan called “an unlawful detention.”

He also suggested that all three officers who took the stand, including Northrup’s partner, were untruthful about what happened while by contrast Zameer and his wife, Aaida Shaikh, both provided testimony that “showed the hallmarks of sincerity.”

“You should believe Umar Zameer and Aaida Shaikh, they are truthful witnesses, their testimony makes sense,” he said.

“To be clear: his testimony does not stand alone. It’s corroborated by physical evidence, expert evidence and multiple other witnesses.”

Hasan also argued the Crown could not address what he called the “elephant in the room.”

“Why would Mr. Zameer, an accountant in his 30s, a family man who’s never been in trouble before, who was out with his young family to celebrate Canada Day — why would he all of a sudden intend to kill or cause harm to a police officer? To say nothing of the fact that he’s out in his car with his eight-months-pregnant wife and his two-year-old,” he said.

The gripping and emotional trial has painted two contrasting pictures of what led to Northrup’s death after he was struck by Zameer’s vehicle in an underground parking garage just after midnight on July 2, 2021.

Zameer has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

During the trial the court heard that Zameer, his pregnant wife and their two-year-old son, drove from their home in Vaughan to downtown Toronto for Canada Day celebrations when they returned to the parking garage at City Hall just after midnight.

Northrup and his partner, Sgt. Lisa Forbes, were in the garage investigating a stabbing. Both were in plain clothes at the time.

Zameer was not involved in the stabbing in any way, but earlier in the night he and his family had coincidentally walked pasted the victim.

At some point the officers approached Zameer’s vehicle, ultimately setting off a chain of events that led to Northrup being fatally struck.

How and why he was killed was the source of days of emotional and contrasting testimony during the trial.

During her final submissions Crown attorney Karen Simone stressed that Zameer made deliberate choices to drive dangerously knowing there were people nearby, striking the officer as he was standing in front of the car.

Here’s a look back at what transpired during the trial:

‘A horrific, tragic accident’: Defence lawyer

Zameer’s defence lawyer maintained that his client didn’t know that Northrup and his partner were police officers and that Zameer and his wife thought they were being ambushed by criminals when the officers rushed towards them in the deserted underground parking lot.

“The evidence will show that this was not a murder, that this was not a criminal act.  It was a horrific, tragic accident – but not a crime,” Hasan said in his opening statement.

The encounter happened roughly a month after a man killed four members of a Muslim family in London, Ont., and Shaikh wears a headscarf, prompting them to fear the worst, he said.

When the officers became “aggressive,” the couple got scared, Hasan said. Their son was crying in the backseat, he added.

“They could not comprehend why these two people would be banging on their car door and asking them to stop in an empty parking lot late at night. There was no reason to – Mr. Zameer and his family had done nothing wrong,” he said.

Panicked and set on protecting his family, Zameer tried to escape, his lawyer argued.

He initially drove forward but his path was suddenly blocked by an unmarked police van, so he reversed into the laneway and then drove forward from there, Hasan said.

He did not realize Northrup had been knocked to the ground in the path of his car, the lawyer said, adding Zameer had tried to leave in a way that avoided a collision.

“Ask yourselves whether it makes sense that this young man, an accountant and family man, who has never been in trouble before, decided to all of a sudden kill a police officer while with his pregnant wife and toddler,” Hasan urged the jury at the end of his address.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, told jurors Zameer chose to make a series of manoeuvres with his car while plainclothes police officers were close by, hitting Northrup and crushing the officer’s body under the vehicle.

“The issue in this case is not who caused officer Northrup’s death or what he died from. The issue in this case is why Mr. Zameer chose to make a series of maneuvers, driving his vehicle in close proximity of two people who were also police officers,” Crown attorney Michael Cantlon said in his opening remarks.

“The issue is also whether Mr. Zameer knew or was willfully blind that Officer Northrup was a police officer acting in the execution of his duties.”

Less than 20 seconds passed between the car’s first movement forward to Northrup’s death, court heard.

Security video from inside the garage is limited and does not capture the initial interaction between the officers and Zameer, nor does it show all of the car’s movements or Northrup’s position, Cantlon said.

Prosecutors allege the officers identified themselves as police more than once as they approached Zameer. Both wore their badges around their necks, though Northrup’s cannot be seen in security video from above ground, Cantlon said. 

Officers testify

Three police officers, including Northrup’s partner, provided eyewitness testimony claiming that the veteran detective was standing with his hands up the moment before he was fatally struck.

Sgt. Lisa Forbes testified Zameer’s SUV made five maneuvers in an effort to leave, at some point sending Northrup “flying backwards” as he stood in front of the vehicle with his arms up in front of him.

The car then ran him over, getting briefly stuck on Northrup’s large body before taking off, she told the court.

But defence lawyers showed new security footage from the garage that they said contradicts that account. Forbes, who had never seen the video before, broke down in tears and requested a short break before continuing.

Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan, suggested Northrup was already on the ground immediately in front of the SUV when the vehicle moved forward, but Forbes insisted she had a clear recollection of her partner “standing on his feet” with his arms braced for impact as he was struck.

“Is it possible you’re embellishing this whole thing because you feel bad about what happened?” the defence lawyer suggested.

Forbes rejected that idea.

“There is a very distinct memory in my brain that replays far too often of Officer Northrup standing in front of that car with his arms raised, and I let out a scream, and I’ve replayed that and have wondered if I had time to scream at him to move. But that has repeated in my head since that day,” she said, her voice shaking with emotion.

“What I’m going to suggest to you is that the replay in your head is not consistent with the objective evidence,” Hasan countered.

The defence also suggested Forbes had lied about how she initially approached Zameer, saying part of her account was “revisionist history.”

Forbes testified that she and Northrup walked up to Zameer’s SUV and that she identified herself as a police officer at that time.

Hasan suggested she and Northrup in fact rushed toward the vehicle, and that she was much more “aggressive” in her approach than she previously indicated.

Forbes replied that she and Northrup were walking “with purpose” but “by no means was it a rush or a jog.”

‘I just wish it didn’t happen’: Zameer takes the stand

Zameer – who testified he thought his family was about to be robbed at the time – told a packed courtroom he could not stop thinking about the day Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup died, and how things would have played out differently if he and his family had returned to their car just a few minutes earlier or later.

“I just wish it didn’t happen,” he said.

Zameer, a father of three, said he can’t imagine the grief felt by Northrup’s children. 

“I’m so, so, so sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your dad,” he said. “I just wish I could bring him back.”

Zameer described getting in the family’s BMW and seeing an unknown man and a woman rush towards the car. He said he didn’t see them properly, but both of them were wearing shorts.

Zameer said the pair didn’t say anything, nor did he see anything in their hands. “They did not say ‘police,’” he noted.  As they approached, the woman pointed at the hood, and Zameer said he assumed she was asking him to turn off the engine.

Zameer thought he and his family were about to be robbed, he said.

Soon after, the woman knocked on the window and pointed down again, which Zameer said he thought could mean that she wanted him to open the door or roll down the window. Instead, he locked the doors, he said.

Immediately, the pair started banging on the car, causing Zameer’s son to start crying, he said. Zameer said he wanted to get out of there, so he drove forward into the empty parking spot in front, heading towards the laneway.

That’s when a dark grey van with tinted windows blocked their path, and Zameer hit the brakes to avoid a collision, he said. 

“When I saw the van, I was shocked … I was so scared,” he said, adding he thought they were being attacked by a “gang” of unknown size.

The two people outside were still banging on the car, screaming at them to stop and get out, he said. Inside the car, Zameer said his wife was hyperventilating to the point where she couldn’t say his name properly and he thought she had gone into labour. Their son was still crying in distress, he said.

Zameer broke down in tears in court as he recalled turning around and putting his hand on his son’s knees, then looking back to reverse out of the spot.

When he reversed, the banging and the shouting stopped, he said. “I thought I left them there,” near the van, he said about the people outside the car.

Once in the laneway, Zameer started driving forward towards the exit, accelerating to get away, he said. He saw nothing in front of the car and didn’t hear anything, he said. “I only heard (my son) crying … there was no other sound,” he said.

He noticed going over what he thought was a speed bump, he said.

Zameer maintained he never saw a badge and the two never identified themselves as police.  

“I didn’t do anything wrong … if I heard that why wouldn’t I stop?” he replied.

Possible outcomes as jury begins deliberations

Criminal defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger, is not involved in the Zameer case but has been following the trial and has given some insight about what the jury decides.

“The crown has to establish to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zameer knew that the individuals who had approached his car were police officers,” explained Neuberger. “And thereby his actions at that time that caused his death were also intentional … I think that’s an extremely high hurdle for the Crown to establish.”

Neuberger said it is possible the jury could come back with a verdict on a lesser, included offence, one being second-degree murder.

“The jury would have to be left [beyond] a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zameer did not know they were police officers but intended to kill a person on the night in question,” explained Neuberger. “I find that incongruent with the evidence and incongruent with the theory of the Crown. Although that may be left to the jury as part of the series of offenses that may be included, I just don’t think that is a plausible verdict available to the jury.”

Manslaughter would be another option, Neuberger said. “That he did not know that the officer was indeed a police officer but that his actions knowing that there were people in front of him or behind him did likely cause harm and somebody died.”

Another possibility: acquittal.

“I think one of the really difficult things here for the crown attorney is there’s no real good explanation why Mr. Zameer would intentionally strike a police officer with his car,” said another criminal defence lawyer, Daniel Brown.

“He’s always said he didn’t know they were police. He thought he was being robbed. He thought him and his family were in danger. He had his wife who was pregnant and his young child in the car. And he wasn’t up to no good. He was an accountant with no criminal history, not committing any crime,” explained Brown.

“So why wouldn’t he have stopped for the police if he knew the police were trying to speak to him? And so this theory of this case makes a lot more sense than the Crown’s theory of the case that he knew they were police and he tried to hit them anyway.”

With files from Erica Natividad