R v Thompson  EWCA Crim 639
"These four otherwise unconnected appeals have been listed together as each potentially raises an issue in relation to the effect of s11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 which requires this court, on an appeal against sentence, to exercise its powers such that 'taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below'. Articulating the issue with reference to the specific sentences that may give rise to the issue, it is about the extent to which this court can substitute what is a standard determinate sentence with (i) a special custodial sentence for offenders of particular concern under s236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; (ii) an extended sentence under s226A or B of the 2003 Act; or (iii) a hospital order with restriction or hybrid order under s37 and 41 or 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983."
The part about when restrictions end in para 5 is wrong.
The ICLR have kindly agreed for their WLR (D) case report to be reproduced below.
The WLR Daily case summaries
 WLR (D) 200
Court of Appeal
Regina v Thompson (Christopher)
Regina v Cummings (Tajsham)
Regina v Fitzgerald (Oscar)
Regina v Ford (Robert)
2018 March 8; 27
Sir Brian Leveson P, Treacy LJ, Carr, Yip JJ, Sir Peter Openshaw
Crime— Sentence— Appeals against sentence— Substituting special custodial sentence, extended sentence or hospital orders with restrictions for standard determinate sentence— Need to ensure defendant not dealt with more severely on appeal than in court below— Guidance— Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c 19) , s 11(3) — Mental Health Act 1983 (c 20), ss 37, 41, 45A — Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c 44), ss 226A, 226B, 236A
Guidance as to the extent to which, on an appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal can substitute for a standard determinate sentence either a special custodial sentence for offenders of particular concern, under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or an extended sentence, under section 226A of the 2003 Act, or a hospital order with restriction or hybrid order, under sections 37 and 41 or 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which does not deal with a defendant more severely than he was dealt with by the court below, as required by section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (paras 1, 3–9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 23)
Guidance as to whether, if the court imposes consecutive extended sentences, it is possible to order extension periods also to run consecutively, thereby increasing the potential licence period beyond the specified maxima (paras 2, 24, 27, 29).
Brendan Carville (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the first case.
Siobhan Molloy (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the second case.
Robert Banks (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the third case.
Sam Robinson and Isabel Wilson (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant in the fourth case.
Jonathan Polnay (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Appeals Unit) for the Crown.