FASD & the Justice System

R. v. LTP/R. v. Peters, 2001 BCSC 1199, 2003 BCCA 568, 2005 BCSC 97:

Offender initially designated a dangerous offender on basis that he had no remorse and, because of his FAS, treatment prospects ‘not encouraging’ – overturned by the BCCA given R. v. Johnson [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357 –  LTO designation at second hearing – observation that proper understanding of deficits in brain functioning opened up prospects for rehabilitation and possibility of controlling risk.