A sentencing judge's finding that an offender's background falls short of 'profound childhood deprivation' under Bugmy is a finding of fact that will not be disturbed on appeal unless error is demonstrated. The stability provided by grandparents or other carers is a relevant factor that may support such a finding. Expert opinions expressed in terms of possibility ('may') rather than probability are insufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that a mental disorder played a role in offending. The question of whether the O'Donoghue 'not open' test or the House v The King 'mistaking the facts' test applies to sentencing findings of fact remains unresolved.
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.