R v Pearce (1998)

This English case is a game-changer for jurisprudence. Three guys, Pearce, Williamson, and Kerry, all get sentenced to five years in prison. But, the twist? They've already served 3.5 years in pre-trial custody. Under UK law, they get time off for good behavior, so they'll only do 1.5 years in prison. Problem? They appeal, saying they should get to serve just 1.5 years in total, including their pre-trial time. The Court of Appeal says, "Nah, mate! You've gotta do the full 5 years, then get time off." But, later, the Supreme Court says, "Hold on, that's not fair! You should only do 2.5 years total." How's that for a turn of events?

What do you guys think about the Pearce judgment? Agree or disagree that the Supreme Court's decision was fair?