FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Kamloops man sentenced to 3.5 years in prison in sexual assault case

Castanet Kamloops reports David Young, 23, was sentenced on two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by choking.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 10, 2026, 8:05 p.m. ET
A 23-year-old Kamloops man, David Young, has been to three and a half years in federal prison, according to Castanet Kamloops, which reported the outcome on Aug. 10, 2026. The charges were two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by choking. Alongside the custodial term, the outlet reported that Young was placed on the sex-offender registry for 20 years, given a 10-year weapons prohibition, and ordered to submit a DNA sample. According to Castanet Kamloops, the Crown said Young ignored withdrawals of consent during sex with two casual partners in the summer and fall of 2022, and later choked one of the women so hard she could not get words out. This is a developing account based on a single published report. No further details of the proceeding — including any response from the defence — are contained in the available record.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 111 Aug 2026, 00:05current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.