The principles concerning the relevance of mental illness to sentencing (reduced moral culpability, inappropriateness as vehicle for general deterrence, heavier burden of custody) apply with obvious adjustments to significant mental disabilities of any kind, not only conditions that qualify as mental illness in a medical sense. A sentencing judge cannot reject a clinical psychologist's expert report solely on the basis that the author is not a psychiatrist, particularly where the report is tendered without objection. Where individual sentences are discounted for guilty pleas but the overall sentence is set by accumulation, the court must ensure the utilitarian discount is unmistakeably reflected in the overall sentence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.