When the teenage killers of 18-year-old Kimberly Proctor come before a judge later this month, the community will finally learn if the pair are sentenced as youth or adults.
Crown prosecutor Peter Juk said at a court hearing Wednesday that the bulk of the two-week sentencing hearing would focus on this issue.
The Langford teens were 16 and 17 when they brutally raped and killed their classmate and burned her remains under a bridge on the Galloping Goose Trail on March 18 and 19, 2010. They pleaded guilty to first degree murder and causing indignity for human remains, while charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement were stayed.
As adults, their crimes would net them life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years, while a youth sentence for the same crime is maximum six years in prison followed by four years of conditional supervision in the community.
If they are sentenced as youth, their names will remain protected by a publication ban, and they will not be listed on the sexual offenders registration. Juk said regardless of how they are sentenced, he plans to push for DNA orders and weapons prohibition for both teens.
Defense lawyers said they’ve reviewed secondary psychological and psychiatric assessments for their clients and compared those results to the court-ordered assessments.
Robert Jones is representing the younger accused, who has admitted to instigating the crime, which he had fantasized about from a young age. Jones said the secondary reports were in line with the initial findings.
“There is nothing that would allow me to challenge the court opinion,” Jones said. “I have no need for cross-examination (of the court experts).”
However, Steven Kelliher, who is representing older teen, took issue with his client being diagnosed a “sexual sadist,” which refers to somebody who gets sexual excitement from inflicting pain on another person.
“It’s unsupported by the evidence,” Kelliher said, advising the judge he’d need one day to cross-examine the psychologist who made the diagnoses.
Juk said he’d need three-and-a-half days to present the Crown’s evidence.
All parties agreed that a two-week sentencing hearing beginning March 28 remained appropriate.
If the teens are to be sentenced as adults, a three week adjournment will be required after that hearing for the probation authority to prepare a report with recommendations on whether the teens should serve time in a youth correctional facility or a federal prison. Then a placement hearing would be held.
Both teens will be required to be in B.C. Supreme Court in Victoria for their sentencing hearing in person, rather than by video conference.
They’ve been incarcerated since their arrests on June 18, 2010, and no bail has been sought to secure their release.