14 It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that notwithstanding the fact that the sentencing judge stated that he intended to give a palpable discount in the sentence for the early plea of guilty, the sentence which was imposed by him did not reflect such discount. In effect ground 2 is a particular of the complaint made by ground 1 that the sentence was in all the circumstances manifestly excessive. The submission of the appellant concedes that the statistics reveal that the sentence imposed on the count of rape is not the highest sentence imposed for this offence,[1] but it is submitted that there were important mitigating factors, in particular the appellant's guilty plea and his remorse. It is submitted further that in the context of this offence the appellant had a long psychiatric or psychological disturbance which manifested itself in persistent substance abuse and periodic outbursts of sexual violence. It is submitted that the sentencing court was obliged to take into account as a mitigating matter reduced moral culpability in accordance with the principles set out in R v Verdins.[2] It should be observed that no submission was made to the sentencing judge that the case of R v Tsiaras[3], or indeed the principles of Tsiaras which were adopted later in R v Verdins, were of any relevance.[4] Nor, in my view, could such submission have been made sensibly. There was no evidence of any mental disorder from which the appellant was suffering at the time of the commission of the offence nor for that matter at any other relevant time, notwithstanding the fact that there had been an earlier diagnosis by Mr Joblin, psychologist, of bipolar disorder which was not confirmed by eminent psychiatrist Dr Vine.