Appeal of threatening conviction denied

Share this story

Tweet

• Surrey slasher's appeal denied
• Supreme Court denies Berner appeal
• Convicted Surrey slasher appeals
• South Surrey border guard's appeal denied
• Threat-uttering appeal rejected
• South Surrey border guard appeals sex-assault conviction

A man convicted in 2011 of threatening a Surrey man had his appeal denied.

Amardeep Singh Lally Narwal was a found guilty of uttering threats to cause body harm in connection to an incident that took place the evening of Sept. 22, 2010.

Inderjit Bisla, the owner of Bisla Martial Arts on 128 Street near 82 Avenue, testified during the original trial that a Cadillac Escalade driven by Narwal pulled up in his business parking lot. Narwal said he wanted to talk and as Bisla approached, the tinted back window of the Escalade rolled halfway down.

Narwal's co-accused pointed what appeared to Bisla to be a gun. It turned out the gun was fake.

Bisla ran and testified Narwal said "come here, come here" and he and Bagri uttered words to the effect of "why don't you come in front of us now" and "we'll see you, we'll take care of you."

Bagri was also convicted of uttering threats to cause death of bodily harm.

On appeal, Narwal's lawyer argued that the trial judge didn't determine the threats were made at the same time the imitation gun was drawn, or that Narwal even knew Bagri was pointing the fake firearm from the backseat. The lawyer said the words alone couldn't have been interpreted as threatening.

Justice Gordon Weatherill didn't buy the argument.

He said the trial judge's reasons clearly stated the use of the imitation gun was not the basis upon which the required intent was found.

"Rather, Mr. Bagri’s use of an imitation firearm accentuated the intent on the part of both the appellant and Mr. Bagri that their words and actions were meant to be taken seriously," wrote Weatherill in his March 4 judgment. "As the trial judge stated, this was not an innocent visit to the parking lot. The appellant and Mr. Bagri were following through on a pre-meditated plot to threaten the complainant."