November 7th 2024 was the date for Taylor McNallie’s appeal to be heard in court. If you haven’t yet, we invite and encourage you to read the notes taken by two STS members that sat inside the courtroom for the appeal. READ NOTES HERE
From Taylor McNallie: "I've just learned that my appeal regarding the sentence over charges related to the 14-day protest outside the Calgary Courts Center in 2021 has been denied. That means the stay of sentence is now lifted and I am to be in custody again this Friday. Meanwhile, Elena Cunningham still remains an employee of the Alberta Sheriffs Branch and Alex Dunn is out fighting fires. -- There is a difference between peace and order, and these systems were created to uphold the latter; there can be no justice provided by a system that was created to maintain the opposite."
At the beginning of 2024 when Taylor was imprisoned for 5 weekends at the Calgary Remand Centre, she applied for both a sentence/conviction appeal and later for house arrest. On the same day the sentence appeal was accepted, house arrest was also. With the appeal being denied, this means now that the stay of sentence has been lifted, which means she is to be back in custody this Friday, January 17th. Though house arrest was approved in 2024, there is still paperwork to do that may not be done in time and Taylor may end up checking into Remand once again. If the paperwork IS done in time, she will be on house arrest every weekend until her sentence is up. House arrest looks like checking in on an app, taking a selfie through the app, answering the phone when corrections/parole officers call, and staying in the house.
Taylor’s lawyer, Sarah Rankin, appealed the conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred, by reaching an unreasonable verdict or giving insufficient reasons, and in his consideration of self defence. They appealed the sentences on the basis that the trial judge failed to properly identify paramount sentencing objectives and failed to give effect to the principle of restraint, to consider parity, and the role of race/racism. The full reasoning from Judge O. Ho can be found in our press kit.
Some things we’d like to highlight from the appeal:
All parties agree Taylor acted in self defense.
All parties agree Elena Cunningham acted unlawfully, as said by the trial judge, through the acts of assault and theft.
There was a conspicuous absence of awareness of the context of anti-Blackness in the trial judge’s decision.
The trial judge’s decision to use the case of Alex Dunn as a comparative case to the case between Taylor McNallie and Elena Cunningham was inappropriate.
Taylor received the losing end in both situations involving Elena Cunningham and Daryl Meeks: with Meeks she is being told photography is lawful and no harm is intended, but with Cunningham she should have understood that being photographed would be threatening.
"Taylor’s lawyer presented very clear direct reasons that the original judgement was based exclusively on antiBlack hate. It was extremely clear by all AGREED upon facts that she was attacked, and her actions were in self-defence.The original judgement was hate based and it was enraging to hear it repeated so clearly and think about the price she has been paying since. Then a queer white person essentially thanked her for the work she does in the queer community and presented the most outrageously racist attempted justifications possible. They expected her to show remorse, they accept she was attacked and defending herself for a handful of seconds. They called her a danger to the community for not ‘having remorse”’and want to put her back in jail for that reason alone. The violent perpetrator who attacked her has not had any charges filed for the attack or asked to feel remorse." - Issabel Temple, community member
Appeal Decision Highlights: Reasons of Judge O. Ho on the Accounts of Mischief Under $5000
Taylor’s lawyer contended that there were inconsistencies in Darryl Meeks’ (the complainant) evidence regarding the counts of mischief and that the trial judge gave no reasons for why he found that evidence credible. The Honourable O. Ho agreed with the trial judge in that he did not have to explain his rationale once he had rejected Taylor’s testimony based on inconsistencies between what she stated and the video footage. So, basically, once Taylor’s testimony was rejected, there was no accountability. Judge O. Ho also stated that the incident in question took less than five seconds, and that video footage of it was therefore only one part of the "totality" of evidence. The trial judge spoke about going with the "logical and accurate description of events". But whose logic are we using here?
Appeal Decision Highlights: Reasons of Judge O. Ho on the Account of Assault with a Weapon
Taylor’s lawyer pointed out that the trial judge used more words to discuss "the proportionality" of Taylor compared to Elena. Judge O. Ho agreed that was true, but that this was because there was nothing else more relevant the trial judge could have discussed. For example, he stated that there was nothing to say about a prior relationship (there was none) and there was "...not much more the trial judge could say about the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident other than to identify that the Appellant [Taylor] was ‘5’10” and 220 pounds at the time" and that "the accused was larger than Cunningham but the latter was very fit and trained in self defence". Really? There was nothing more to say about the comparison between Elena Cunningham and Taylor McNallie, such as the positions of power at play?
"The Crown’s central argument against Taylor was that she showed 'no remorse' even while admitting that Cunningham engaged in assault and theft and Taylor was acting in self-defense. They claimed Cunningham’s assault was 'minimal' and Taylor's response was 'excessive'. This kind of gaslighting and victim-blaming is an abuser’s handbook 101. The oppressive systems we live under is abuse at a societal/collective scale. Cunningham, being white and with her role as a sheriff, assaulting a Black woman is acting within the norms of our white supremacist culture. Taylor, as a Black woman reacting to defend herself against this assault, is deviating from her prescribed role and the societal expectation to submit to that culture. Prosecution is saying loud and clear that her biggest 'crime' is her 'unwillingness' to be obedient to the system punishing her for the egregious act of defending herself when being attacked by a white person." - Ginny, Stop the Stack YYC
Appeal Decision Highlights: Reasons of Judge O. Ho on Sentencing
The trial judge had accepted the atmosphere outside the Calgary Courts Centre was tense. However the trial judge stated that Taylor ought to have accepted responsibility for heightening the tension by approaching the complainant (Darryl Meeks) to film her. He found that the mischief occasioned on the photographer was, however, “"completely unjustified" and Taylor’s lived experience of racism was irrelevant to this incident. The trial judge also wanted to prioritize denunciation and deterrence as factors in how he chose the sentence.
Denunciation: the public criticism of someone or something
Deterrence: the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences
Taylor’s lawyer used the overemphasis on denunciation and deterrence as one grounds for appeal, as well as the lack of parity between her case and Alex Dunn’s, and the lack of consideration of anti-Black racism.
Many members of Stop the Stack, at the request of Taylor’s lawyer, wrote a series of letters to support her appeal. Judge O. Ho did not accept the submission of these because they could have been submitted during the trial the year prior. He also stated he was not satisfied that the evidence, if believed, could have affected the sentence. Judge O. Ho felt satisfied that the trial judge was "attuned" to Taylor’s “community and her family, and that the letters would not have made a difference in sentencing.
The trial judge said of Taylor that "one might hope that her experiences with being the recipient of harassment and bullying might have taught her to accept and respect others who are not challenging her but that seems to not be the case".
White supremacy loves to oppress people and then expect them to be the bigger person.
He also said "the accused being a leader of the protestors should have been an example of restraint rather than aggression".
We all know that only the cops are allowed to be aggressive, definitely not the people standing up to them.
The Honourable O. Ho quoted the Court of Appeal in R v Pierre
"We have no difficulty in taking judicial notice that systemic anti-Black racism exists in Alberta. -- However, 'absent some connection' between systemic racism in the community and the criminal conduct, ‘mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount.'"
He stated further that Taylor should have explained how her experiences as the target of hate and harassment was connected to the incidents and/or her reactions.
"The trial judge concluded that the connection between systemic racism and the present circumstances of the criminal conduct in question actually worked against the Appellant [Taylor]...she should have been aware that she was engaging in the exact conduct she complained of."
"The crown lawyer used the case of Colten Boushie, a murdered Indigenous man, to imply that if a harsh sentence is not upheld in Taylor’s case, it would cause ‘other vigilantes’ to feel comfortable to murder. It was distinct that the case law being applied to Taylor was not upheld when Gerald Stanley, a white man, was on trial for Colten’s murder and was acquitted. A civilian review of this case found the RCMP mishandled the investigation and were racially motivated, including comments that his murder was ‘deserved’. The crown did not concern themselves with deterring vigilantes in the case of a white man shooting a young Indigenous man and now claim a Black woman raising her arm in self-defence, while her other arm is being held by her attacker, is a greater threat to society. It is offensive to use Colten’s name in this way and the crown should apologize and seek to make amends". - The Reconciliation Action Group
Time spent
At this point, Taylor has already served 5 weekends in prison. The mental, emotional, physical, financial trauma has already been done. And this purposefully drawn out legal process continues to traumatize her with each court appearance – which, as mentioned earlier, is the point of all this: lawmakers create laws to wield their power and the courts enforce laws to maintain it.
Taylor is exhausted. As Black History Month looms, she will be spending the beginning of it under arrest. This is a continued assault on her ability to earn money, to build relationships, and to heal. We as a community need to come together and support Taylor. Enough is enough. As members of Stop the Stack we continue to beg you to ACT NOW. This is not a story within a vacuum. Taylor’s experience is the experience of countless people in the legal system. We must fight harder. We must be willing to burn it all to the ground.
"The law is oppression codified. Didn't you legalize these crimes against Black people and codify them in your slave codes? Didn’t you legitimize your genocidal slaughter of the American Indians and theft of their land by legislating Indian laws and the Homestead Act? Were not these crimes politically motivated and formed the very foundation of United States capitalism?" - Revolutionary Black anarchist and jailhouse lawyer Martin Sostre
CALLS TO ACTION
1. Donate to the legal fund
2. Sign our letter of support
3. Send a letter of complaint to CPS
4. Share our Press Kit
5. Write a testimonial or create a video of support for Taylor and Adora
For more, visit: https://linktr.ee/stopthestackyyc
Join us in standing up against legal abuse and police corruption in Calgary!
Comments