Andrew Brown

N.M., a young person, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his foster father.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, arguing N.M. had sufficient maturity and that a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The court considered N.M.'s disadvantaged background, emotional development issues, and the cumulative pressures he faced, including racism and family dysfunction.

The judge found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and that a youth sentence could hold N.M. accountable.

N.M. was sentenced to a youth sentence of seven years, comprising three-and-a-half years in custody and three-and-a-half years under conditional supervision, with no credit for pre-sentence custody.

A young person was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from a motor vehicle collision on March 14, 2018.

The accused, a 17-year-old G1 licence holder, was driving at excessive speed on a dark, winding rural road in breach of his licence restrictions when he lost control of the vehicle, crossed the centreline, and collided with an oncoming truck.

One passenger died and three others were seriously injured.

The accused pleaded guilty after trial evidence was completed.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence (12 months in custody followed by 6 months community supervision) plus 12 months probation, a 6-year driving prohibition, a $500 fine, DNA order, and firearms prohibition.

The sentence balanced the serious nature of the offences and the accused's moral blameworthiness against his youth, remorse, lack of prior record, and strong rehabilitation prospects.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary week-about parenting schedule for the parties' four-year-old child.

The court found that no status quo had been established as the week-about schedule was intended to be a short-term trial.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that continuing the shared week-about schedule was in the child's best interests, noting the father's flexible work schedule and the child's strong emotional ties to both parents.

The motion to change the temporary schedule was denied.