Post-sentence medical developments that are merely continuing manifestations of chronic conditions known to the sentencing judge do not qualify as fresh evidence under the R v Smith principle, as they do not explain the full extent or implications of symptoms existing at the sentence date. Evidence that medical care in custody has been adequate does not support a ground of appeal based on shortfall in expected treatment. An aggregate sentence involving notional accumulation across offences arising from separate drug transactions is not disproportionate where the offences cover a spread of distinct criminal activity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.