33 With the greatest of respect to the court in that matter, the case of Verdins now arises in almost every plea before the courts, certainly in the Supreme Court. It has made the task of sentencing judges more difficult, forcing them to consider reports from psychiatrists, but more usually psychologists, who have often had only very brief interaction with an offender, who have accepted as reliable and truthful the word of that offender as to their state of mind, thought processes or abilities, and relied upon the statements by the offenders, as though it was sworn evidence, to then ascribe to the offender, at least one of the six limbs of Verdins. I have found over time that I am less and less satisfied with reports prepared by forensic psychologists who have often spent an hour or less, with the offender before producing a lengthy report that purports to address quite particularly, and directly, the various limbs of Verdins, usually relating to either the moral culpability or the sentence weighing more heavily upon the offender. In light of this trend, it would be helpful to sentencing Judges in all courts, if the Court of Appeal could re-examine this aspect of sentencing with a view to perhaps reining in the overuse of reliance upon Verdins. Whilst the issues referred to in Verdins have relevance in this case, as I will discuss shortly, the consideration of the issues in Verdins overwhelmed most of the plea, when it should have been no more than another factor to be considered in the range of matters that the sentencing Judge must consider.