Citynow

Continued from page 23

But Elwood rejectedYahia’s evidence, saying it was “neither reliable nor credible ”

He ruled there was enough evidence to prove Yahia was a “co-principal” in the attack one of the four girls who hit the victim, grabbed her hair and forced her to the ground but not enough to proveYahia had continued to participate after the attack became a robbery

“What Ms.Yahia did participate in was an unprovoked, violent and cowardly swarming attack on a defenceless young woman who thought she was her friend,” Elwood said. He handedYahia a three-month conditional sentence, including 45 days of house arrest, and one year of probation.

During her sentence and probation,Yahia is banned from contacting the victim and another person named in the ruling.

She is also prohibited from possessing knives and weapons and consuming drugs or alcohol

Defence lawyer Bobby Movassaghi had asked for a conditional discharge, meaningYahia would not have had a criminal record if she successfully completed a period of probation

But Ellwood rejected that idea

“A conditional discharge would not be in the public interest in this case It would not send the appropriate message to the community or to Ms Yahia herself,” Ellwood said.

He pointed to an earlier court ruling that said swarming cases “require a strong denunciatory message” even if the individual offender’s participation was limited

“Those who choose to participate in gang-like violence cannot expect to have their culpability determined without regard to the totality of the harm inflicted Each is accountable for the collective action,” stated the appeals court ruling