Toronto man acquitted in cannabis-induced choking attack on young girl

A Toronto man who argued he was suffering from cannabis-induced psychosis when he choked a seven-year-old girl three years ago while naked has been acquitted of assault charges.

Sign In or Create an Account

Ahmed Baig pleaded not guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice to assault causing bodily harm and assault by choking for the Aug. 2, 2023, attack in which he left his home wearing only a towel after vaping cannabis. His towel eventually fell off, and Baig started chasing a family he encountered in their driveway.

“He ran into the driveway and picked up a seven-year-old girl. He threw her to the ground, punched her and strangled her. He then abruptly left the driveway, and a short time later was arrested by police. At the time of arrest, he wore only a T-shirt,” Justice Mara Greene wrote in a recent decision.

Get a dash of perspective along with the trending news of the day in a very readable format.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

The judge concluded that Baig’s attack was due to “nonmental disorder automatism.” She found him not guilty of both charges.

Baig didn’t “dispute that he attacked the seven-year-old girl,” said Greene. “He argued, however, that he should be acquitted of the charges because his actions were involuntary as he was suffering from a cannabis induced psychosis at the time of the attack.”

The Crown argued that “while Mr. Baig’s mental faculties may have been impacted by cannabis, his acts were still volitional,” said the decision.

In the alternative, the Crown recommended Baig should be found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder.

The court heard Baig lived in a muti-generational home with extended family. On the day of the attack, he was left alone and got anxious.

“Home alone, Mr. Baig decided to consume cannabis to help with his feelings of anxiety,” said the Aug. 13 decision.

“He used a brand of cannabis recommended by the store, but one he had not used before. The cannabis was in vape form. Instead of relieving his anxiety, he felt more anxious.”

Baig called his wife, asking her to come home, then went to bed. “Mr. Baig testified that his next memory after lying down on his bed was being in a cell and then being fingerprinted.”

His victim’s identity is protected by a publication ban.

During the attack, which was captured on video surveillance, Baig “said both ‘I will kill you’ and ‘I won’t kill you,’” according to the victim’s mother.

“He also referred to Allah.”

He “sounded nonsensical at times and made comments about billionaires,” said the victim’s father.

When police asked Baig if he wanted a lawyer, he “stated that he wanted Neil Patrick Harris or a lawyer from a television show,” said the decision. “He also talked about bitcoin and lotteries.”

Baig answered some questions appropriately and obeyed a police command to drop to the ground, said the decision. “He also told the police that he was ‘mentally insane.’ Once at the police station he was able to answer questions posed to him and appeared more coherent.”

Baig, 38, testified about having a “history of sleepwalking,” and that he used cannabis in the past to help deal with anxiety.

A psychiatrist and sleep expert testified that Baig “was either suffering from cannabis induced psychosis, sleepwalking or a combination of the two.”

Sleep apnea led to Baig “being significantly sleep deprived,” said the psychiatrist, who opined sleep deprivation coupled with his history of sleepwalking and a new strain of cannabis caused the incident.

Another psychiatrist was brought in to determine whether Baig was NCR.

An acquittal based on an absence of criminal (responsibility) for a violent act is rarely a satisfying verdict

He testified that Baig “did not appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions at the time of the attack as he was suffering from a cannabis induced psychosis. He further testified that in his opinion, Mr. Baig’s actions were involuntary.”

The second psychiatrist determined that Baig “did not qualify for an NCR defence because he did not have disease of the mind. While Mr. Baig had a history of feeling anxious, he did not have an anxiety disorder, nor did he suffer form any other kind of mental illness.”

It was his opinion that, during the attack, Baig “was in a psychotic state that was different from mere intoxication.”

This psychotic episode “was so intense that his capacity for rational perception and his capacity to make a rational choice was grossly impaired,” the second psychiatrist testified. “Mr. Baig was rendered incapable of appreciating the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his actions.”

The Crown argued that the evidence, at its highest, established that Baig was intoxicated “but not to the point of being an automaton.”

Cases like this are difficult for trial judges, Greene said.

“An acquittal based on an absence of criminal (responsibility) for a violent act is rarely a satisfying verdict. Nonetheless, our law is clear, that accused persons who are not (criminally) responsible should not be convicted.”

The judge found that Baig “has proven on a balance of probabilities that he was acting as an automaton when he attacked the seven-year-old girl in her driveway. I am satisfied that Mr. Baig voluntarily consumed cannabis, had an unexpected reaction to the cannabis, that led to a state of psychosis where he acted in an involuntary state and attacked the young victim.”

He’s used cannabis before, but “never had a reaction like this,” Greene said.

The judge found that the risk of recurrence is relatively low. “This is because Mr. Baig has used cannabis intermittently since he was 15 years old without a similar incident, Mr. Baig does not have substance abuse issues, he has not used cannabis since his arrest and has found better methods of addressing his anxious feelings. In my view, this is not a case where oversight by the Ontario Review Board is required to protect the public.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.