 |
| John L. Hill |
Two youths, referred to as H.J.J.B. and T.D.T. and aged 15 and 16 at the time of the offence, were convicted in May 2022 of second-degree murder for the August 2019 stabbing death of Paul Prestbakmo in South Surrey, B.C. Their sentencing was scheduled for June 8, 2022, following a court appearance in November 2021.
Prestbakmo, 45, was attacked in a parking lot after stepping outside his home in the early morning hours of Aug. 16, 2019. He was stabbed 42 times in just 26 seconds. There was no apparent motive for the attack, nor any indication of a precipitating event. The trial judge was left with the possibility that it was simply a random act of extreme violence. The teens, who had been uninvited to a nearby party, encountered him while walking in the early morning hours and were armed with knives. The judge found the number of wounds and circumstances demonstrated a clear intent to kill, rejecting a claim that the attack was a gang-related hit. He also acquitted one youth of a separate aggravated assault charge involving a senior earlier that night.
nicoletaionescu: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
When the date for sentencing arrived, the two youths were convicted of second-degree murder for the brutal, unprovoked stabbing death of a stranger. The trial judge imposed adult sentences of life imprisonment with seven years’ parole ineligibility, finding that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under the Youth Criminal Justice Act had been rebutted and that youth sentences would be insufficient. They appealed their sentences.
The appeal decision was released at the conclusion of the March 27, 2026, decision (R. v. H.J.J.B., 2026 BCCA 138). The court allowed the appeal and replaced the life sentences with the maximum youth sentences: seven years each (four in custody and three under supervision). Ancillary orders were adjusted accordingly, including a revised weapons prohibition.
Despite the severe violence of the crime, the court emphasized that sentencing must adhere to the governing law and the increased protections for young offenders.
On appeal, both offenders challenged only their sentences. After the R. v. I.M. decision in 2025 (R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23), the legal standard for imposing adult sentences on youths was clarified and became more stringent: the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the presumption of diminished moral culpability is rebutted.
The Crown acknowledged that the trial judge’s reasoning did not meet this higher standard. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that although the judge properly followed earlier law, the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the youths had adult-level maturity. Consequently, adult sentences were not legally permissible.
Despite the severe violence of the crime, the court emphasized that sentencing must comply with the applicable law and the increased protections for young offenders. Lenience comes not from being a boy but from a presumption of reduced moral blameworthiness.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books); The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing) and Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.