What I'm confused about is why you think it is relevant that she had taken drugs over a relatively brief period in the past.  And if you don't think it's relevant, why did you accuse the other poster of "glossing over" the fact?

There are lots of victims of violent crime who find it very difficult to testify even though they have the benefit of stable housing and good nutrition.  This woman's normal habit was to be up all night and find safe places to sleep during the day.  It's not surprising she was nodding off during entry of exhibits or that she was traumatized while on the stand.  What's surprising is the court's unusual response of jailing her.

The awful way she was treated gave the defence a whole new argument as to why her testimony should be considered unreliable, ie, more than they would have had if she had been allowed to stay at her mother's house under police supervision, as she quite reasonably requested.  She didn't need to be jailed.