“There’s a disconnect”: Youth worker says Leflar’s killer doesn’t take full responsibility

The teen who pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of Hannah Leflar doesn’t appear to take full responsibility for his actions, according to a community youth worker.

Elizabeth Christoffel testified on the stand that the youth had a poor attitude towards his offence. It appeared he minimized his role in the murder, she testified.

Sixteen-year-old Hannah Leflar was fatally stabbed by Skylar Prockner at her home in January 2015. Court heard that the youth stood by and didn’t try to stop the murder.

READ MORE: Co-murderer describes Leflar killing during sentencing hearing for youth

The youth is wrapped up in it being somebody else’s fault, Christoffel said. There’s a “disconnect” in him taking his level of responsibility, she added.

That sentiment was shared by psychologist Danielle DeSorcy during her testimony on Tuesday.

READ MORE: Psychologist says Leflar killer was ‘flat’ while recapping murder

Christoffel’s report estimated a one in three chance the youth will re-offend.

“It’s a 36 per cent chance of him reoffending. It’s not specific to violent reoffending,” she said.

Christoffel noted the youth did tell her he felt guilt, sadness and remorse over what he did.

She said the teen had difficulty talking about the murder. They had to take a break in the middle of the story.

Christoffel also testified the youth appeared to care about what happened to Leflar’s family. She said the youth had told her: “If he knew taking his own life would bring Hannah back, he would do it.”

However, Christoffel said staff at the Paul Dojack Youth Centre, where he’s currently in custody, told her his attitude was poor. He’s doing the bare minimum, she said, and only works in his own timeframe.

While the youth had acknowledged the need for rehabilitation, he hadn’t really looked into what that might mean, Christoffel testified. He doesn’t fully acknowledge what he needs to do, she added.

Christoffel said incident reports filed while the youth was in custody either involved self-harm or temper tantrums when he didn’t get his own way.

The youth needs to work on his anger management, Christoffel said.

According to Christoffel’s report, the youth is at a risk to re-offend because of poor family and parenting circumstances, his friends, lack of hobbies and a pro-criminal attitude.

For example, the youth’s willingness to participate in Project Zombify, a plan to lure and attack Leflar’s previous boyfriend, showed a criminal nature, Christoffel said.

The youth gravitated towards criminal behaviour, despite having positive outlets in his life, she said.

VIDEO: Sentencing hearing for second person in Leflar trial begins

Christoffel’s report said the youth described his ‘life as hell’ from the ages of five to 13 because of abuse inflicted on him by his stepdad.

The community youth worker said her interviews found that the teen’s mother didn’t discipline him, but her partners did.

On the other hand, Christoffel noted the youth had no criminal history or substance abuse problems. His education and employment were seen as positive areas for him.

During cross-examination, defence lawyer Greg Wilson questioned why Christoffel had included Leflar’s family’s views in the report. She testified it was standard practice.

The intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision program, or IRCS, is available to young offenders with a mental illness who have committed severe crimes.

An assessment panel found the program would be appropriate for the youth, although it was after some reservations, Jennifer Peterson, the program co-ordinator testified.

Skylar Prockner wasn’t recommended for the program. The difference between the two of them was that the youth had performed better overall, Peterson said.

The youth had participated and shown to be more engaged in treatment programs than Prockner, she said.

Prockner has already been sentenced as an adult to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for ten years. He’s appealing his sentence.

The youth can’t be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Crown is asking for him to be sentenced as an adult, in which case he could be named.