Where post-sentence evidence demonstrates that imprisonment has been significantly more burdensome than anticipated at sentencing — particularly due to mental impairment, self-harm, solitary confinement, and absence of therapeutic services — the Court of Appeal may reduce the sentence under the Eliasen principles even where the sentencing judge's discretion did not miscarry at the time. A sentencing judge's erroneous expectation about the availability of therapeutic services in custody may ground appellate intervention. The absence of disability forensic treatment services for female offenders (where available for males) was described as 'obviously unacceptable' and requiring urgent remedy.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.