{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014558689717925387, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01091901728844404, 'mean_word_length': 4.583756345177665, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 1, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh: Selecting an Appropriate Sentence for Extreme Crimes by a Young Offender: Campbell (Aaron) v HM Advocate, 2019 SLT 1127

Aaron Campbell was 16 years of age when a jury held unanimously as proved charges against him of the abduction, vaginal and anal rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in Rothesay on the Isle of Bute. He was made the subject of an order for detention without limit of time and with a punishment part of 27 years. His appeal was on the statutory ground that the sentence was excessive. The submission on appeal was that while the crime was uncommonly grave the trial judge had placed undue weight on the pessimistic assessment of the Appellant being unable to change and that such an assessment was more a question of future risk rather than an aggravation of the severity of the crime to be reflected in the punishment part. In particular, the trial judge was said to have erred in concluding that the challenges in modifying the Appellant’s thinking and behaviour had led him to make inadequate allowance for the mitigatory effect of youth.