20 I think that the intoxication of an offender is a relevant circumstance and is capable in a particular case of informing factors which relate to an appropriate sentence. It may, for example, bear upon the existence and degree of remorse. In the present case, the psychiatrist described the appellant as shocked by his actions, which he saw depicted on the film made by the surveillance camera. A sober offender could not make a like claim. The circumstances in which the crime was committed and the appellant's reaction to it also affect the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.[9] The sentencing judge was able to form the opinion that, with sobriety, the appellant's rehabilitation was 'achievable'. Further, I consider that the effect that the appellant's intoxicated state had upon his judgement and self-control moderates the need for denunciation by the Court.[10] The appellant has been an alcoholic for more than 30 years, but has no convictions for any serious crimes of violence and there was no suggestion that he was inclined to be violent when intoxicated. The appellant's wife and son stated in letters to the Court that the appellant was not violent or aggressive.[11] While knowledge of the effects of alcohol consumption and the part it often plays in acts of violence may be taken to be well known, the appellant's own experience would not have alerted him to the danger to which his drinking exposed others.