The difficulty, jno, is I don't think the law was properly intended to be applied in this way. The fundamental idea is that a person who is mentally ill should not be found guilty if, at the time of the acts complained of, he did not know what he was doing, or, if he did know, he did not know that what she was doing was wrong. Now, this woman did the acts complained of, as the jury found, and must have known that she was acting dishonestly by the standards of ordinary people.
The question then arises whether a person, sane at the material time.is now so mentally ill (which includes depression) that they are incapable of giving instructions to their counsel during the trial or incapable of understanding the nature or conduct of the proceedings. Plainly, such should not be tried. But if they recover sufficiently, they should be. But the course taken effectively means that this woman will never be punished for her sane actions. (You'd be surprised if a mass murderer escaped on the grounds that he was ill at the time of the trial). It is notable that the judge didn't make a hospital order because there were not two doctors (one of whom must be qualified in psychiatric medicine) present. Whyever not?
That's why I think this was a good result for the defence and the defendant.