ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — Justin Jennings was acting as the classic strong-arm debt collector when he knocked on a Mount Pearl man's door one suppertime in May, prosecutor Jude Hall said Friday morning.
The video evidence of the incident - recorded by the man's doorbell surveillance camera - proves Jennings is guilty of extortion, Hall told a provincial court judge, even though Jennings did not make any direct threats of violence.
"It's implied," Hall argued, reminding Judge Mark Pike that Jennings had told the man "things will get worse" for him if he didn't pay up.
"I would actually suggest it's more than implied, it's explicit. There's no other way to take it than an explicit threat."
Not according to Jennings' lawyer, Averill Baker.
"We don't have any violence and we don't have any threat of violence," Baker argued. "I understand that my friend thinks that saying things will get bad means violence, but it's not inclusively what that means. It could, but that's definitely not a given."
Hall and Baker presented their closing arguments in the case against Jennings to Pike, who will consider them and render his verdict on Sept. 11.
Jennings, 34, has pleaded not guilty to an extortion charge in connection with the May 27 incident on the front deck of the complainant’s home. In the video of the conversation, which was shown in court last month, Jennings is heard telling the man he was sent to collect a $37,000 debt for someone else, but doesn’t know what it’s for. He suggests the man pay a third of it right away, or things would “get worse.” If he can’t pay with money, Jennings tells him, he’ll have to pay with something else.
The man tells Jennings he doesn't have a debt and doesn't know what he's talking about, suggesting it's his friend Johnny who owes the money.
The video ends when Jennings leaves, telling the man to sort things out with Johnny and meet him in an hour at a nearby McDonald's.
Baker made an application last month to have the video thrown out as evidence, since the complainant had provided it to police as a series of clips and there appeared to be portions of more than a minute at a time missing, according to the time stamps.
Pike decided Friday to allow the video to be included, saying there was some evidence to suggest the time stamps were incorrect.
Hall began his submissions by pointing out the definition of an extortion according to the Criminal Code: an attempt by a person to obtain something from someone else or to induce them to do something by using threats, accusations, menaces or violence, without reasonable justification.
"Mr. Jennings didn't come out and say if you don't have this money in an hour and a half, I"m going to do this specific act of violence to you. But that doesn't need to be present for the victim to have felt there was an implied threat being made," Hall said.
The complainant had been clear in his testimony in court that he had taken Jennings' comments as a threat, he added.
"We know what the victim thought was coming," Hall said. "He was being induced to comply."
Hall urged the judge to give the video some weight, since it corroborated the man's testimony on the stand. The man had been frank and straightforward, Hall said. He had no criminal record and hadn't contradicted the information in his statement to police.
"He was asked if he was a drug dealer and he gave a straightforward answer, which was 'No, I'm not.' The Crown submits on his account alone, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Baker told the court she disagreed with Hall's characterization of the witness's credibility, saying he had admitted he had been threatened in the past by the person who had sent Jennings, but had not reported it to the police.
The man had denied he owed any money until he was asked outright, Baker said, and then he acknowledged it and said the debt had since been resolved.
There had been talk between him and Jennings of an encrypted messaging app often used by drug dealers, Baker noted; the man said the account in question had belonged to his friend, not to him.
Jennings was attempting to collect what he believed was a legitimate debt, Baker argued, focusing on the part of the extortion charge requiring "no reasonable justification" for an accused's actions.
She asked the judge to consider the demeanour of the two men in the video and pointed out Jennings had left the man alone in the end, telling him to figure things out with Johnny before they met again.
"You have Mr. Jennings looking rather confused," she said. "He's mild-mannered, he's standing very far back and he's moving away, in fact, from (the complainant), who is larger than Mr. Jennings from the look of the video. (The complainant) is vaping, he's leaning against something, his voice is not shaky. He's not shaken. He's playing a little game, I would submit, with my client.
"Why is Mr. Jennings' confusion relevant? It's relevant because he wouldn't have been there if he didn't think this was a legitimate debt."
Without the missing pieces of the video, Baker argued, there is no way to prove Jennings is guilty of extortion.
[email protected]
Twitter: @tara_bradbury
