R v Crookes  EWCA Crim 1065
On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal. [MHLR.]
The summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 1999 are available here: MHLR 1999.
The propriety of a restriction order in light of the fresh evidence – R v James Andrew Crookes  Mental Health Law Reports 45 CA
Points Arising: On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal.
Facts and Outcome: C was made subject to a hospital order and restriction order under ss37/41 MHA 1983 after conviction of 2 counts of wounding with intent, involving him attacking 2 people with a sword. By the time of the sentencing hearing, he had been diagnosed, given proper treatment which controlled his illness and had a level of insight into it: the Court of Appeal held that the restriction order was properly imposed on the material before the sentencing judge, the further progress made meant that it was not required.
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)