Gars Kourjakian’s brother and father have sat through four days of evidence at the first-degree murder trial for Devret Clarke and are upset by his defence that he’s not criminally responsible for the killing.
“It’s just a little bit of disgust, to be honest with you, and the fact that we’re trying to pawn this off as an NCR is just another failure of the system,” Gars’ brother Sevag Kourjakian told Global News outside the courthouse.
It was Dec. 30, 2022, when 37-year-old Devret Clarke, a former neighbour of Kourjakian’s, drove into the underground parkade behind Kourjakian, who had just pulled into his parking spot.
As the 34-year-old husband and father was getting out of his vehicle with his four-year-old daughter, Clarke pulled up next to him and shot at Kourjakian from his vehicle. Kourjakian was struck in the neck and died at the scene. His daughter grabbed her father’s cell phone, called her mother and told her that her father was dead.
“We hope she does not remember the traumatic events that did happen on that night and hopefully she’s able to live a normal life moving forward,” Sevag said, calling his niece courageous.
Get breaking National news
The Kourjakian family said they will not feel they have gotten justice for the unprovoked and deadly attack unless Clarke is found guilty of first-degree murder, but the defence is relying on evidence of two forensic psychiatrists who assessed Clarke on psychiatric disorders and the impact on criminal responsibility.
Dr. Sumeeta Chatterjee testified on Thursday that Clarke was suffering from schizophrenia at the time and said it was untreated, except for two days he had spent in hospital in 2020.
- Family speaks out after ALS patient allegedly robbed in own home by care worker
- Protest held at Langley Tesla dealership against Elon Musk, in support of democracy
- B.C. court voids ‘cult’ marriage, finding young woman didn’t ‘truly consent’ to it
- RCMP unit that flags violent threats to PM, public figures faces workload burnout
Chatterjee testified that Clarke was experiencing paranoid delusions and sensory and auditory hallucinations in the form of voices.
“The voices were constant, many were derogatory, command in nature and threatening,” she told Superior Court Justice Maureen Forestell. Chatterjee said Clarke attributed the voices to the people at the building he had lived in, including the victim.
She said at the time of the shooting, Clarke was in a psychotic state. While Chatterjee opined that he was capable of appreciating the legal wrongfulness of his act, he was likely incapable of knowing the moral wrongfulness of his actions.
Chatterjee agreed with Dr. Lisa Ramshaw, who testified Wednesday that she did not believe Clarke was feigning symptoms of mental illness to avoid criminal prosecution.
During cross-examination, assistant Crown attorney Bryan Guertin asked Chatterjee if she had heard Clarke give evidence when he was being cross-examined on Wednesday about how he believed his nephew was being attacked in the days leading up to the shooting, which prompted him to act in self-defence.
Chatterjee said Clarke had never spoken to her about the nephew being attacked when she assessed him last year, nor was it something he told Dr. Ramshaw.
“We are waiting for the decision of the judge,” Hagob Kourjakian, Gars’ father, said, hopeful that Clarke will be found criminally responsible.
“We need justice,” he added.
Gars’ brother said the family also wants to know how Clarke was able to get a firearms licence in late 2021, despite the fact court heard he’s been suffering from untreated schizophrenia since 2019 or 2020.
“The fact that he was able to get a gun licence. It’s fairly easy to get one. All you have to do is get two people to sign off on it and as long as you have no criminal background, they’re not checking anything medically,” said Sevag. “Essentially if you have a clean record, guess what? You can get a gun.”
Closing submissions will be heard next week. The Crown is contesting the defence’s argument that Clarke should be found NCR, saying it will be focused on arguing the legal issue of moral wrongfulness.
Comments