Farah’s Appeal: Cancer, CPTSD and the Human Cost of Imprisonment

As Farah Damji’s case reaches the Court of Appeal, new legal submissions, expert witness evidence, and campaigning research expose a stark picture: a criminal justice system failing women with cancer and complex trauma. This week’s hearing on Wednesday 14th January before the full Court of Appeal raises urgent questions about punishment, healthcare, and humanity behind prison walls.

On Wednesday 14th January, 2026, the Court of Appeal will hear arguments that go to the heart of how the justice system treats women who are seriously ill and traumatised. Farah Damji’s case, now before the court following both a state challenge to her sentence and her own appea, has become a stark illustration of the consequences of imprisoning women with cancer and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD).

The legal document before the court, drafted by James Marsland of 5 Paper Buildings, instructed by Julian Hardy of Brooklyn Law, responds to the Solicitor General’s Reference and sets out revised grounds of appeal against sentence and conviction. It paints a detailed picture of a woman whose punishment has been compounded by failures in prison healthcare and the prison service’s refusal to properly engage with expert medical and psychiatric evidence.

The sentence under scrutiny

In July 2025, Farah was sentenced to a total of six years’ imprisonment. The main component was a sentence of five years and six months for stalking involving serious alarm or distress, with shorter sentences for theft and fraud bringing the overall total to six years.

Unusually, the state has now intervened. The Solicitor General argues that the sentence was “unduly lenient” and that the judge should have imposed an extended sentence on the basis that Farah was dangerous. Farah’s legal team rejects this outright. At the same time, Farah has appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive once her medical condition and mental health are properly understood.

The Court of Appeal hearing takes place this week, meaning a decision could come very soon.

Dangerousness raised after the fact

One of the central legal issues is procedural fairness. At the original sentencing hearing, the prosecution did not invite the judge to consider dangerousness and did not request a pre-sentence report assessing future risk. The judge herself did not describe Farah as dangerous.

As James Marsland’s submissions explain, dangerousness is not something that can be assumed retrospectively unless it was effectively unavoidable on the material before the court. In Farah’s case, multiple psychiatric and psychological assessments were available, none of which concluded that she posed a significant risk of causing serious future harm. To raise dangerousness now, on appeal, deprives the defence of the opportunity to properly challenge or contextualise that allegation.

Cancer and a missed window for treatment

Farah’s appeal also focuses on her breast cancer diagnosis. At the time of sentencing, she had stage 3 aggressive HER+ breast cancer that had already spread to multiple lymph nodes. Although surgery successfully removed the tumour in her breast, follow-up chemotherapy and radiotherapy were crucial to improving her life expectancy.

Medical professionals warned that imprisonment would likely disrupt treatment. That warning proved tragically accurate. While in custody, Farah missed the critical post-operative “window” for radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Updated medical evidence confirms that this missed treatment has materially worsened her prognosis.

Two additional witness statements now reinforce this point. Jonathan Joffe, an oncologist, provided evidence describing the systemic lack of timely access to cancer treatment within the prison service, including delays in referrals, transport failures, and the absence of continuity of care. This evidence confirms that Farah’s experience is not an anomaly but part of a wider pattern affecting women with cancer in custody.

The appeal argues that the sentencing judge underestimated the seriousness of Farah’s condition, describing it as “potentially” life-shortening, when in reality her cancer is incurable and her chances of surviving five years are around one in three. Mr Joffe’s evidence confirms the cancer has likely already recurred but Practice Plus Group, which runs healthcare at HMP Eastwood Park, and Zoe Short, the prison governor, are obstructing her access to scans.

CPTSD and the cruelty of custody

Farah also lives with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, alongside depression, generalised anxiety disorder, and a borderline personality pattern. While the sentencing judge accepted these diagnoses, she gave them no mitigating weight, stating that Farah’s behaviour was entirely her own choice.

This approach is directly challenged by expert evidence. Consultant Dr Gaurav Malhan provided a witness statement describing the particular cruelty of imprisoning women with CPTSD. His evidence explains how custody is likely to exacerbate trauma symptoms, increase emotional dysregulation, and intensify psychological distress, especially when combined with serious physical illness.

Sentencing Council guidelines require courts to consider both how mental disorders affect culpability and how custody will impact the individual. Farah’s appeal argues that these mandatory considerations were not properly applied.

A wider crisis for women in prison

Farah’s case sits within a broader context of concern about women’s healthcare behind bars. The Feminist Justice Coalition is due to publish an upcoming report documenting the systemic injustices faced by women in prison who are living with cancer. The report exposes repeated failures to provide timely diagnosis, access to specialist treatment, and continuity of care; failures that can have life-altering, and life-ending, consequences.

Farah’s experience reflects many of these findings: delayed treatment, missed medical windows, and a system seemingly unable to adapt punishment to the realities of serious illness and trauma.

“It really breaks my heart”

Those closest to the case have spoken openly about its emotional toll. Farah’s criminal law solicitor Julian Hardy said:

“It really breaks my heart the way Farah has been treated. I really hope we can get justice for her in the Court of Appeal.”

His words capture the human reality behind the legal arguments; a woman facing not only a lengthy sentence, but the possibility that imprisonment itself has shortened her life.

What happens next

The Court of Appeal may uphold the sentence, reduce it, or increase it if it accepts the Solicitor General’s arguments. Whatever the outcome, the decision will resonate far beyond Farah’s individual case.

At stake is not just one woman’s future, but a fundamental question: how should a justice system respond when punishment collides with terminal illness and profound psychological trauma? This week, the Court of Appeal has an opportunity to answer that question and to decide whether justice, in Farah’s case, can still be done.