The Crown is appealing the controversial acquittal of Peter Khill in the shooting death of an Indigenous man, Jon Styres, in a high-profile self-defence case.

The Crown argues Justice Stephen Glithero did not properly instruct the jury on what the law says about self-defence.

The Crown Law Office in Toronto, which falls under the Ministry of the Attorney General, filed the appeal with the Court of Appeal of Ontario on Thursday.

Generally, an appeal can be granted if new evidence arises or if an error in law has been made during the trial.

Jeffrey Manishen, the lawyer who won the acquittal for Khill during the 12-day trial in Hamilton, issued a statement: “After all of the attention that his case has received, Mr. Khill was disappointed to learn that he will now have to retain counsel to respond to the Crown appeal against his acquittal.

“He believes that the trial was conducted with fairness for all concerned and without error on the part of the trial judge or the jury. He wants the appeal to be heard as soon as possible.”

Read more:

Opinion | Shree Paradkar: Echoes of Colten Boushie verdict as Hamilton-area man acquitted in shooting death of Indigenous man

Peter Khill found not guilty of second-degree murder in death of Indigenous man

Pathologist describes shotgun blasts that killed Indigenous man in Hamilton

Khill’s wife, Melinda Benko, is about seven months pregnant.

Styres left two small children.

The Styres family says the appeal by the Crown is “good news” and that the weeks since the verdict have been very difficult.

Barb General, director of the Six Nations Justice Department, praised the decision to appeal and said in a statement: “The verdict has left people feeling like it is open season for violence on Indigenous people.

“We are grateful that the Crown is continuing to fight for justice in this case.”

On June 27, a jury of seven men and five women found Khill, who is white, not guilty of second-degree murder and not guilty of manslaughter in the Feb. 4, 2016, shotgun shooting of Styres, who was from Six Nations.

Khill was surrounded by police and escorted out a back door of the courthouse after the verdict because of concerns for his safety.

The case drew the anger of Indigenous people across Canada — and divided the public at large — because of the perception among some of racism in the justice system.

There was never any evidence or suggestion by anyone directly involved with the trial that Khill, 26 at the time, shot Styres, 29, because he was Indigenous.

The jury heard it was very dark at 3 a.m. when Khill blasted Styres twice with a shotgun after finding him rummaging through his truck in the driveway of his Binbrook area home.

Khill testified he shot Styres because he believed he had a gun and was going to use it.

The trial heard Styres did not have a gun.

The acquittal meant the jury believed Khill feared for his life and that his training as a former military reservist possibly kicked in and caused him to react on auto-pilot to “eliminate the threat,” as Khill had put it.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Under Canadian law a person cannot kill someone to defend property — like a truck — but can lawfully kill someone to protect a life.

Prosecutors argued at trial that Styres’ homicide could have been avoided if Khill had simply called 911 and stayed in his house.

The Crown’s appeal also says the judge erred by allowing an unqualified witness to give opinion evidence about the long-term impact of military training.

There was considerable debate among the trial lawyers about whether Florida psychologist Lawrence Miller qualified as an “expert” able to provide opinion evidence.

Miller — who ended up testifying for only a matter of minutes — said military training can be “stamped” into the brain, causing an automatic response.

Where the issue of potential racism did come into the trial was in the jury selection process.

The Crown team, the defence and Glithero agreed that the impact of another acquittal in a somewhat similar case in Saskatchewan earlier in the year could have repercussions on the Khill trial.

So it was decided all potential jurors would be screened for racial bias.

All 12 members of the jury answered “no” when asked if the fact Khill is white and Styres was Indigenous would cause them any bias.

In the wake of the verdict, a new wave of anger aimed at racism in the justice system and this country’s long history of colonialism flared.

On Canada Day, a Justice for Jon rally was held at Queen’s Park.

Six Nations’ elected band council voted to ban Khill for life from Six Nations of the Grand River territory. And Six Nations Elected Chief Ava Hill was joined by all of Ontario’s Indigenous chiefs in demanding the acquittal be appealed.

The Spectator asked the Ministry of the Attorney General on Friday if that demand had any influence on the decision to file the appeal.

A ministry spokesperson said he would provide an answer “shortly.” So far, an answer has not been provided.

The Styres family has launched a $2-million lawsuit against Khill.