After Alek Minassian was arrested on Yonge St. in April 2018, after using a van to kill 10 pedestrians and injure 16, he was brought to a police station.

In response to a question from an officer about whether he “was suffering from any illnesses,” Minassian responded: “Yes. I am a murdering piece of s---.”

At a pretrial motion ahead of Minassian’s April trial on 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder, his defence is seeking to have that statement ruled inadmissible because his rights to counsel and to silence were violated.

In court documents filed by defence lawyer Boris Bytensky, he argues the routine questions police asked during the booking process were “not appropriate” because they risked eliciting a response relevant to the investigation about Minassian’s mental health.

Pretrial hearings are typically subject to publication bans meant to protect an accused person’s right to a fair trial by jury. However, Minassian’s trial will be heard by a judge alone, with no jury.

According to an agreed statement of facts read by the Crown on Thursday, Minassian drove a rented van “into or otherwise struck at least 26 people. Ten of those people were killed and 16 others were injured to varying degrees” on April 23, 2018.

Before he was arrested that day, Minassian told Toronto police Const. Ken Lam “shoot me, kill me” and made hand gestures to suggest he had a gun. Lam arrested Minassian with no struggle.

Shortly after his arrest, Minassian told Const. Philip Butler something about “suicide by cop” in response to a question about whether he had anything on him that could cause an injury.

In court Thursday, families of the people killed in the attack and some of those injured listened as the agreed facts of the case were read out.

The trial will focus on Minassian’s state of mind and is expected to centre on the testimony of forensic psychiatrists who have examined him while he has been in custody.

The defence has conceded a four-hour interview Minassian gave to police — in which he said he wanted to inspire an “incel uprising” and that he felt that he “accomplished (his) mission” — is admissible.

The Crown psychiatrist has been asked to comment on the significance of Minassian’s comment that he is a “murdering piece of s---,” according to the agreed statement of facts. The psychiatrist has said that the utterance is “not the determining factor to the opinion. I consider everything the applicant told the police himself to be important and the utterance is one piece of that.”

On Thursday, Bytensky argued police should have been more aware that Minassian may have had mental health issues and that he should have been informed that he could face murder charges

Const. Philip Butler, one of the officers who led Minassian to the station, testified that he first arrested the man on a single charge of attempted murder.

Butler said he repeatedly advised Minassian he had the right to speak to a lawyer and the right to remain silent. He also said he told Minassian that it would be in his best interest to remain silent as he had, at that point, declined to speak to a lawyer. Minassian later spoke to duty counsel twice.

Butler testified that at no time did Minassian give him any reason to think that he did not understand what was going on or that he didn’t know he was speaking to police officers.

Minassian was not told by police that he didn’t have to answer routine questions asked upon his arrival at the police station for safety, Bytensky said.

The questions include whether the accused is on medication, if they have recent injuries or illnesses, and if they have any physical or mental conditions the police should be aware of, said Minassian’s lawyer Bytensky during cross-examination.

Staff Sgt. Brad Lloyd testified that accused persons are not told they do not have to answer the routine questions.

Bytensky said Lloyd’s notes show he was concerned about that mental health or emotional factors may have played a role in the offence, but he asked Minassian questions about his mental and emotional state anyway and did not tell him that he didn’t have to answer the questions.

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

“You didn’t do anything other than encourage him to speak loud enough so the microphone would pick up his answers,” Bytensky said.

Lloyd agreed with that, saying he was not aware at the time that Minassian had said “shoot me, kill me” prior to the arrest or that he’d made a comment about suicide-by-cop during his arrest.

“That would have been informative,” he said.

Bytensky also questioned Butler about why he told Lloyd during the booking process that Minassian had been arrested on “numerous attempt murders, vehicular manslaughter.”

Butler agreed that Minassian was initially only arrested on one count of attempted murder and had not been told that information before.

Butler said, at that point, just before 2 p.m., he was not aware whether any of the victims struck by Minassian had died, though he’d heard some were vital signs absent — which is why the charge at the time was only attempted murder.

“Things were still unfolding,” Butler said, adding he didn’t know how many people had been harmed but believed there had been more than one victim.

Bystensky noted that vehicular manslaughter is not a real charge. Butler said he was trying to add context about the offence for the sergeant.

Bytensky said a charge of manslaughter implies someone had died. Butler said he did not know for sure that someone had died at that time.

Butler agreed that if someone had died, that would increase the seriousness of the charges Minassian faced.

Bytensky also noted that Butler did not tell the staff sergeant that Minassian had said something about “suicide by cop” after his arrest. He also did not mention it when Minassian was specifically asked by the staff sergeant if he had harmed or tried to harm himself and Minassian said no.

Bytensky asked whether a medical practitioner had been called because the possibility of a suicide risk had been raised by that comment. Butler said that did not happen. No specific suicide risk protocol was done.

The Crown and defence have not yet made arguments about the application.

A ruling is expected at the end of the trial which is expected to start April 6, presided over by Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy.