Bill Bhangal Found Guilty of Sexual Assault

Former Brampton Conservative Party candidate Bill Bhangal has been found guilty of one count of sexual assault. He was sentenced to four months house arrest after being found guilty of driving his victim to a secluded area in April 2011 and kissing her under her clothes. The court described the crime as low to moderate in severity.

Bill Hundal

In 2007, Sam Bhangal, who works as the owner of Jiffy Lube franchises throughout Ontario, tried to win the Alliance party nomination for the old Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale riding. Although Bhangal is well connected with the Conservative party, he failed to win the Bill Bhangal nomination and lost the election to Liberal Kuldip Kular. Since then, Sam Bhangal has been involved in several election bids. His political aspirations are known throughout Brampton.

While Hundal requested that Lowenstein serve as lead counsel, the court refused to grant Hundal’s request because he did not want two attorneys questioning the same witness and performing the same tasks. The prosecution introduced surveillance videotapes of the Hundal family and testimony from the police officer who found adult pornography on Hundal’s computer. The victim also testified at the trial.

The prosecution objected to the defense counsel’s questioning of the victim’s mother about the incident. She protested and eventually agreed, although she had to wear her first bra. The prosecution did not admit the victim was in any danger. The prosecution’s objection was overruled by a judge.

The court should vacate Hundal’s conviction. His trial counsel represented other trial counsel in a drug-related criminal case and failed to disclose that representation to Hundal. Furthermore, Hundal’s trial court contained the same judge who presided over his trial. Hundal’s trial counsel drafted the state habeas petition, but failed to disclose his representation. He also failed to introduce impeachment evidence regarding the victim’s mother and maternal grandfather. He also alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was denied a fair trial.

Hundal is a Hindu Sikh and believes the trial was biased against him. During his trial, a Hindu Sikh was on the jury panel. The prosecution peremptorily challenged the Hindu Sikh’s presence on the jury. As a result, Hundal’s lawyers were ineffective in failing to object to the challenge.