A sentencing judge cannot find that a juvenile's offending was not borne from immaturity and impulsivity where unchallenged psychological evidence links the offender's cognitive deficits and developmental impairments to the offending behaviour. Where co-offenders are of significantly different ages, the sentencing judge must differentiate between them in assessing the causal role of immaturity. Principles from adult sentencing cases concerning community protection (Bugmy, Engert) require careful adaptation when applied to juvenile offenders and cannot be mechanically transposed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.