Where a plea is conducted on the basis that intoxication wholly explains the offending, a post-sentence psychological report advancing a different explanation (such as borderline personality disorder) will not be admitted as fresh evidence on appeal, as this amounts to running an entirely different plea in mitigation. Even if such evidence had been before the sentencing judge, where the offender was grossly intoxicated, the almost inevitable conclusion would be that intoxication, not the personality disorder, was the relevant cause of the offending.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.