Nathaniel Veltman appeared listless and uninterested as arguments about his sentencing continued in a London court on Tuesday.
The 23-year-old was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder in November.
Veltman intentionally drove his truck into five members of the Afzaal family on June 6, 2021. The family was stopped at a crosswalk on Hyde Park and South Carriage Roads while on an evening walk when the attack occurred.
Talat Afzaal, 74, her son Salman Afzaal, 46, his wife Madiha Salman, 44, and their 15-year-old daughter Yumnah Afzaal were all killed. Salman and Madiha's son, who was nine at the time, was seriously injured but survived the attack.
Veltman will face a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years due to the guilty verdict on the four murder charges.
Justice Renee Pomerance will decide how long he will serve for attempted murder and whether he will also be labelled a terrorist. This case marks the first time in Canadian legal history that terrorism was argued in front of a jury as an element of first-degree murder.
Both the defence and the Crown have filed factums, citing case law and evidence from Veltman's trial supporting their stances, but this is their chance to argue out loud. Some of this evidence includes unredacted interviews with police and the full, unredacted version of Veltman's manifesto, A White Awakening, which the jury was not allowed to see during the initial trial.
Federal prosecutor Sarah Shaikh began by stating that the Crown only needs to prove one motivation for a terrorism conviction. It needs to be either an ideological, political, or religious reason for the finding, but she said there's plenty of evidence of all three.
Shaikh told Justice Pomerance that "the evidence is overwhelming in terms of the aggravating factors." She stated the jury's decision showed that they rejected the defence's theory that multiple mental disorders and the after-effects of using magic mushrooms allowed Veltman to act on his impulses and commit murder.
"The jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender intended to kill all five members of the family," she said.
Shaikh added that the defence hadn't even adequately proven that any mental disorders existed. She said the testimony given by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Julien Gojer, who is the one who diagnosed Veltman with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), a personality disorder, and complex childhood trauma, should not be given weight.
Point by point, Shaikh took apart Gojer's statements. "Dr. Gojer was not up front with the jury and the court during his testimony," she said.
She reminded the judge that Gojer wasn't upfront about the fact that he hadn't fully formed his opinion before Veltman's testimony and that the foundation of that opinion relied on the offender's self-reported upbringing. "The offender refused to allow Gojer to speak to his mother or siblings," Shaikh said, which negated any chance of corroborating what his childhood was like. In fact, she said, his father said he had a good childhood.
"Gojer said he didn't observe OCD symptoms when he met with [Veltman]," Shaikh said, adding that the doctor also said that he had no hallmark symptoms of ASD.
She added that the jury rejected Gojer's report about the withdrawal effects of psilocybin (magic mushrooms). "No magic mushroom defence existed before the trial started," Shaikh noted. She also pointed out that his findings were based on novel science, and that Gojer's research involved a self-reported online survey.
"By all appearances, Dr. Gojer was a witness for the defence, not a witness for the court," Shaikh concluded.
She then spoke about Veltman's manifesto, saying that the jury wasn't able to hear about his hatred not only for Muslims but also for feminists, the LGBTQ community, Jews, and Black people.
"His views are hateful and it's difficult to accept that someone would hold those views," Shaikh said, "but those views are coherent and logical to the offender and those like him." She added that it should be used as proof of finding Veltman guilty of terrorist activity.
A White Awakening also includes quotes from Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler's autobiography, and was heavily inspired by New Zealand mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant. In the excerpts that were allowed in court, he described Muslim people in graphic, derogatory terms and aligned closely with Christian, White Nationalist views.
In his first police interview, Veltman told London police that he was "100 per cent politically motivated."
Shaikh recounted that he told Detective Micah Bourdeau, "I'm surprised you haven't searched my home already. Just do the investigation I'm sure you'll find everything you need to know."
Following a morning break, Shaikh continued by declaring that Veltman had every intention of intimidating Muslim people with his actions. She explained that he wanted to make them afraid to do everyday things, such as going for a walk, and that you only need to hear a few of the more than 70 victim impact statements to know that he succeeded in his goal.
"Family members, friends, and community members do feel terrorized. They do feel scared" Shaikh said. "It's changed their view of Canada and of London. One of the family members feels suicidal. They feel scared whenever they try to cross the street, or when they see a black truck," she added.
The Crown is also seeking a life sentence for Veltman's attempted murder conviction. "The offender is a mass murderer," Shaikh declared. She added that the judge should consider that when he committed attempted murder it was in the context of a mass murder; he was trying to kill five people, but he only got four.
"A life sentence is a fit and proportionate sentence," she said.
After Shaikh finished with the Crown's submissions, lawyer Christopher Hicks got up to speak for the defence.
The defence's position is that Veltman should serve 10 years for attempted murder, not 25.
Hicks explained that the judge needs to consider the offender and not just the offence. He said that Veltman's "unique upbringing" and mental diagnoses are relevant to her decision. He added that no one will ever know how the jury came to their conclusion, and that Justice Pomerance can only infer that they believed the murders were planned and deliberate. To assume they believed he committed an act of terrorism would be "conjecture and speculation."
When addressing A White Awakening, Hicks claimed it was actually tolerant of Muslims. "It's not an anti-Muslim document," he said, insisting instead that it was antisemitic.
Hicks continually mentioned that Justice Pomerance could only come to the conclusion that the murders were an act of planning and deliberation and that there was no evidence of terrorism. He was also adamant that his two witnesses gave very credible testimony. "Mr. Veltman was 20 years old at the time, with no criminal record, he and Dr. Gojer went unscathed in cross-examination," he said.
At one point Pomerance asked Hicks directly if he acknowledged that Veltman's attack on the Afzaal family was a hate crime.
After taking a moment to think, Hicks responded no, not based on the manifesto.
When Pomerance clarified, saying she was asking based on all of the evidence, Hicks said "I believe it is a planned and deliberate murder of a certain race . . . the Muslim people, yes."
Hicks concluded that Veltman's writings were not proof of terrorism by reason of ideology. "Venting on a wide variety of topics does not amount to an ideology," he said. Adding that A White Awakening was really just a collection of unrelated thoughts that Veltman never intended to share with anyone.
Shaikh did get a chance to reply to Hicks' submissions. She said that while Veltman claimed not to have an ideology of his own, and even though he rejected many mainstream ideologies, he aligned heavily with White Nationalism "which he may not think is an ideology, but in fact is."
Justice Pomerance then gave Veltman a chance to make a statement. His statement was as follows:
To: This Honourable Court
I want to take this opportunity to express my deep regret for the loss of the Afzaal family.
While I maintain and stand by what I said in my testimony at trial, I understand and accept that it was the direct result of my actions on June 6, 2021 that caused the loss of four innocent lives and a young boy to be left on his own, but I don't pretend to grasp how much harm I have caused the boy.
Over the course of days, months and years following my offence, I have seen and grasped the extent of pain and suffering that my actions have caused. This was most evident earlier this month during the victim impact statements.
I cannot undo this pain and suffering. I cannot turn back time. I want it to be known that I learned a lot about myself through this process. Specifically, I learned of a number of mental health disorders that I have and that played a role in this tragic incident. This has helped me to understand why I held the beliefs and thoughts that I did.
I plan to take every opportunity available to me to better myself. I plan to take full advantage of the programming and counselling available to me with a view of becoming a better person.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Veltman
Following court, Hina and Ali Islam, with support from members of the victims' family, gave their own statement.
"It would be a failure for anyone to believe this is an apology - this is one more strategy in a series of ploys that has not stopped for 2.5 years. It comes from a convicted killer who has had ample opportunity to confess. If he was truly sorry, we would never have been here for this needless trial - video evidence of the attack, video confession in jail, a written manifesto, and a chart of pedestrian fatality and driving speeds on his coffee table. This was an unnecessary revictimization of our family," Madiha's aunt, Hina said.
"This is not an apology. These are strategic words coming from a killer after being convicted. He could have chosen any time to apologize, but to do it just before sentencing so it can be entered into the record as an 'apology' is a checkbox that is being ticked for the parole board. This is not an apology, it is a strategy," Madiha's uncle, Ali continued.
"An apology would be confessing to the terrorism charge - not fighting it. Everyone knows what he did. He used violence and killed three generations, including a child, to intimidate an entire segment of the Canadian population. The concealment of this obvious intent for the last 2.5 years reveals his corrupt ideology, as much as he tries to veil it behind a hollow 'apology'," Hina concluded.
Court will resume on Thursday, February 22 at 10 a.m., for Justice Pomerance to deliver her decision.