Delay between charge and sentence has dual relevance in sentencing: it is a mitigating factor from a fairness perspective (charges hanging over the offender's head) and separately relevant to rehabilitation where the offender has not re-offended during the delay period. A sentencing judge who addresses delay only in the fairness context but fails to consider it in the rehabilitation context commits appealable error. A finding of absence of remorse does not necessarily preclude a finding of good prospects of rehabilitation; whether absence of remorse bears on rehabilitation turns on the circumstances of the individual case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.