In most cases involving youthful offenders, the offending conduct itself coupled with the offender's age allows for the inference that immaturity contributed to the commission of an unpremeditated criminal act, without the need for expert evidence. Expert evidence of immaturity may be necessary in some cases (such as sexual offending by a young adult), but is not a prerequisite in cases where the offending is redolent of immaturity, susceptibility to peer pressure, and lack of insight. The question of whether immaturity contributed to offending remains a live issue on which reasonable minds may differ, as demonstrated by the 2-1 split in this case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 24 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 24 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.