A sentencing judge who accepts that Bugmy principles are 'enlivened' must go further and engage with the evidence of the effects of childhood deprivation on the offender's moral culpability and capacity for behavioural control; merely recording the acceptance is insufficient. Where a psychologist's report is admitted without objection or cross-examination, no principle requires the sentencing judge to exercise 'very considerable caution' before relying on its contents. The Qutami observation to that effect is not a principle of law and, if it were, would be wrong.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 73 later cases that cite this judgment.
21 of the 73 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.