Does a young person’s intoxication at the time of the robbery constitute a mitigating factor?

Defence counsel’s suggestion that the young person’s intoxication at the time of the offence is a mitigating factor is not persuasive. Due to the theft component, the offence of robbery is a crime of specific intent. See The Queen v. George, 1960 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1960] S.C.R. 871 at 877-79. By his guilty plea to the offence, the young person admitted his degree of intoxication was not a defence. He was able to communicate during the robbery and the general pattern of his acts does not display any of the usual signs of impairment such as slurred speech and impaired ability to move. I do not consider that what he had to drink had much impact on the crime other than to motivate him to obtain more liquor. 2. Age, Maturity, Character, Background and Previous Record of the Young Person