A man, now 20 who was 17 at the time of his arrest, was found guilty on September 25 of participating in a terrorist group.  Judge John Sproat heard the case without a jury in court held in Brampton, Ontario, just west of Toronto.  Because of his age at the time of the offense, the person convicted cannot be named.

This young fellow, a convert to Islam from Hinduism, was described by the judge as a willing participant in the group even though there was no evidence that he knew about any specific plot.  He was, said the judge, “an eager acolyte.”  Mabin Shaik, the government’s key witness, who infiltrated the group for the police, disagreed with the judge’s decision. He claimed that the youngster was a naïf who was in well over his head, not really aware of what he was getting into or what was going on.

The defense will ask the judge to throw out the charge because Shaik assisted in military and weapons training at a secret camp.  It will be argued that the role played by Shaik amounted to entrapment.  As well, an appeal of the decision is planned.

Originally, 18 men and boys were charged under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act.  It is alleged that they were plotting a fertilizer bombing of buildings in Toronto and that they also considered the capture and beheading of members of parliament.  
Charges against seven men were stayed.  Because of the loose wording of the law, and because at this point a charge under it has stuck, it seems that the prosecution now has a decided advantage in the trials of the remaining ten defendants.  Legal experts are predicting that the example of this case, while not a legal precedent binding other judges, will nevertheless lead to plea bargaining by at least some of the remaining ten.