A jury's rejection of the defence of mental illness does not require a sentencing judge to find that any impairment in the offender's capacity to know their actions were wrong was not significant; the verdict leaves open the possibility of impairment to some degree, and the sentencing judge must independently assess the extent to which mental illness reduces moral culpability. An offender who offers to plead guilty to the offence of which ultimately convicted should receive the benefit of the utilitarian value of that offer, even where the Crown rejected the offer and proceeded on a more serious charge. General deterrence should be given very little weight in sentencing a significantly mentally ill offender.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.