Law360 Canada ( December 20, 2021, 6:23 AM EST) -- Appeal by the accused Mohammed, Ochelo and Lugela from convictions for kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, pointing a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Mohammed also argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay. All three appellants argued the trial judge rendered unreasonable verdicts and provided insufficient reasons for conviction. Minhas and Bains were dropped off in a parking lot by their friend TD. They entered the back seat of another vehicle in the parking lot and that vehicle drove away. A short time later TD received calls from Minhas, and later Bains, telling TD they were being held for ransom and they needed him to get monies for their release. With the assistance of police, Minhas and Bains were recovered safely the next day and the appellants were arrested. The appellants brought Minhas and Bains to Baker’s house. Baker previously bought drugs from the appellants. Baker testified the appellants carried guns and that all the men did drugs together. He claimed Ochelo and Lugela told him to stab one of the victims. Later, when Baker’s wife came to the house, the victims acted as if everything was fine and that they were men who acted like friends and were simply hanging out. At this point the victims were walking freely around the house. The video footage and observations of surveillance officers shortly before the victims were released spoke of the victims appearing to be acting casual in public and one of the victims controlling access to Baker’s residence. The appellants did not testify. The victims failed to appear at trial. Defence counsel argued that some or all the people at Baker’s house were involved in some type of drug or business deal and that this was not a kidnapping for ransom. Defence counsel also suggested the possibility that the victims were not kidnapped, but rather, were consenting participants who were attempting to scam money from their own friends. The Crown responded that on the question of whether the kidnapping was a scam that included the victims the Crown did not have that evidence. The delay from being charged in 2017 to closing arguments in 2019 was 29 months, below the presumptive ceiling of 30 months. Mohammed argued a direct indictment rendered a trial in the superior court a one-stage proceeding to which a ceiling of 18 months should apply, not 30 months and that the trial judge erred in finding the delay was not unreasonable....