Ruse to get ransom or actual kidnapping? B.C. judge says she's not sure

(Shutterstock)

When a man was taken from his vehicle at gunpoint from a mall parking lot then held in a condo for days, was he actually kidnapped, or was he playing along?

The answer may never be clear, as even a British Columbia Supreme Court justice said she isn't sure what really happened over the span of three days in 2019.

Justice Janet Winteringham said in her ruling on Wednesday that the "entire encounter is highly suspicious."

"However, I simply cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the movement of (the alleged victim) was against his will or whether he was a co-operating participant in some scheme, either as characterized by defence counsel or otherwise."

The Vancouer courtroom heard through the trial of three men charged with kidnapping that the victim, if that is what he was, was taken at gunppoint from his vehicle in July 2019. He was taken to a nearby condominium, where he was held at ransom until being "rescued" by police two days after he was taken.

The Crown described Arnold Hue as a "less than perfect witness," Winteringham summarized while revealing her verdict, but said evidence backed up his claim that he was a victim in the operation.

But two of the three accused said at best, the Crown may prove unlawful confinement. The third denied even that charge, and all three claimed the so-called kidnapping was a ruse.

The accused, Abdulkadir Handule, Abdullah Abdullahi and Obinna Njoku, told the court that Hue was in on it the whole time. They'd been part of a scheme to extort ransom money from Hue's "criminal associates," and accused Hue of lying to police and the court.

THE EVIDENCE

Some of the evidence and facts in the case are not disputed, among them being that Hue met the three people in the parkade at Metrotown Mall, and left with them in a Dodge Charger registered and driven by Njoku.

All four went to the condo, their arrival at which was captured on security camera.

Also captured on video was police officers' arrival at the condo, prompting the attempted escape of the accused from the balcony. All three were arrested a short time later.

And no one argued that Njoku, who jumped from the 11th floor to a 10th floor balcony and broke a sliding glass door to enter another suite in the building, attempted to mingle with other residents, at one point picking up a stranger's child and carrying her down the staircase "much to the disapproval of her mother."

What is unknown is how the moment of the alleged kidnapping actually played out, as the area where Hue had parked was not within the range of surveillance cameras. The court heard that 44 seconds are unaccounted for.

Nothing captured on video inside the condo building makes it clear whether Hue was there of his own volition, and he's only seen on the building's cameras one time.

Text messages presented in court may have been negotiations over ransom, or they may have been indications that the alleged kidnappers were in on the hoax, depending on which side was analyzing what the men sent each other.

HUE'S INCONSISTENT STORY

Hue was the sole witness to the kidnapping, but his fiancee also testified, telling the court "matter-of-factly" about Hue's alleged involvement in illicit activities, including the shipping of marijuana. Hue, for his part, denies any involvement in criminal activity.

Age 31 at the time of his testimony, Hue "downplayed" his relationship with a man described during the trial as a drug dealer, Winteringham said. Details in his story changed or were vague, she said.

Hue said he'd been at the mall for a money transfer.

He told the court that earlier in the day, a bundle of money was thrown into his car window by occupants of a passing SUV at an arranged location. He'd gone to the mall to run errands while waiting for further instruction.

The justice called this bizarre story about a favour he was doing for the alleged drug-dealing associate "evasive, inconsistent and disingenuous."

"I find that Mr. Hue's description…is unbelievable. I do not accept the suggestion that he received the money through his window, either by throwing it or handing it to him (his testimony was inconsistent on this point)," Winteringham said.

"These were important details that someone, who hours later says he was kidnapped, would have recalled."

And the judge didn't buy Hue's claim that he was trying to avoid the associate involved in drug crime, yet was inexplicably owed $6,000 from that man, and still agreed to do a favour for him.

There were several other inconsistencies as well, and that's all before Hue talked about the kidnapping itself.

Asked why he was seen on video driving around the parkade, rather than just parking right away, Hue said he didn't want to look suspicious to the security guard. The judge said it's "suspicious" that Hue eventually settled on a spot blocked from the security cameras.

Hue "was unable (or unwilling)" to explain how it was organized that the contact for the money transfer would meet him.

He claimed one of the men got in his car with him, they spoke to each other, and then he was told to get in the other car. Hue said he agreed to get into the other car, hoping it would move the interaction along so he could go home.

He testified that all three pointed guns at him when he got into the Charger, contrary to a sworn affidavit in which he said two people had guns. While some may think it's a small detail, and Hue said the changed story was just his memory fading, the judge weighed this heavily, as Hue was able to describe all three guns in detail during the trial and told the court he'd learned the types through video games.

If he remembered that much about the guns, surely he'd remember the number, the judge implied in her ruling.

He said he was tied up and his phone, watch and glasses were taken away.

But the judge didn't buy it, noting that Hue said his kidnappers "circled back" after taking off so that they could make sure Hue's Honda Civic was locked, and that Hue's version of the encounter would have taken much longer than the 44 seconds hidden from the parking lot's surveillance cameras.

It's unclear whether Hue was tied up or at gunpoint. The judge said the surveillance video from the condo building doesn't support or contradict the story.

Hue said while being held in the suite he was untied and mostly kept in the bedroom. He was allowed to go to the kitchen to get himself a drink of water, but wasn't given food for some time.

He said he was threatened with guns and knives – video showed Hue with a gun and a knife pointed at him – and tied up at times, also backed by video.

Another video viewed by the court showed Hue crying while speaking about his grandmother.

He claimed his kidnappers worked with him to stage that his finger had been cut off. "Blood" seen in one of the videos was made of ketchup, Sriracha and "some kind of berry."

Hue himself admitted all the videos were simulations, but the judge agreed with the Crown that they were disturbing and degrading even if Hue knew what was going on.

THE DECISION

All three accused were charged with kidnapping, and all three were found not guilty of that charge.

But Handule and Abdullahi didn't dispute the Crown's claim that at some point after Hue was brought to the condo, the situation did turn into one of confinement.

The pair conceded that they are guilty of the lesser offence of unlawful confinement.

The judge agreed that the Crown proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Njoku, however, took the position that he was not guilty of that offence either. The judge noted his attempt to evade police as raising questions about his involvement, but ultimately acquitted him.