Richard
Moore's Straight Talk Columns
These
light sentences are just criminal
3/5/2011
JUST
when you think our judges have cottoned on to the fact society wants
criminals dealt with more harshly, we have a couple of yarns from
Tauranga District Court that sink our hopes.
The
first involves a Brookfield woman caught with more than six times
the daily limit of pipi. She claimed she knew nothing of the 150
limit as she had only been pipi-ing six times in 10 years.
The 58-year-old, and an associate, had almost 1000 pipi in a flax
kit. Now the laws are there to protect pipi for everyone to enjoy,
both now and in the future, and greedy people like that should be
made examples of with hefty fines.
In
2007 a new offence targeting serious non-commercial offending meant
anyone caught with more than three times the legal daily limit faces
a maximum fine of up to $20,000 for each offence as well as forfeiting
boats or vehicles used to commit the crimes.
So
this woman was twice that minimum, but only copped a $350 fine.
And
yet in January, a man who was caught at Port Waikato with 10 times
the legal limit of pipi was rightly clobbered with a $1500 fine
by the same judge.
The
Beak told the man in the Waihi Court that without an early guilty
plea he would have been hit with a $3000 fine.
Another
interesting part of the case is that the guy had 506 pipi, the legal
limit being 50 a day in Auckland/Coromandel, while in the Bay it
is 150 a day.
So
by my reckoning the two offences were roughly equivalent in seriousness.
As
the Ministry of Fisheries officer Ian Bright told the court: ``People
who take more than their fair share of fish or shellfish are basically
stealing from the other members of their community.''
Next
up we had a case where two workmates took to a colleague with a
hammer and baseball bat and whacked the heck out of him.
The
incident came after a dispute between two of them at a work party
a few days earlier.
Now
I reckon using a hammer and bat on someone is pretty cowardly and
to continue while they are on the ground is just contemptible.
The
very same judge said his first reaction was to jail the 38-year-old
and 22-year-old, but then took into consideration mitigating factors
such as a guilty plea and their remorse.
Now
here I want to put my hand up and say ``hold the bus!''
Why
should people get reduced sentences for pleading guilty when there
were witnesses around to prove they did the crime anyway?
If
they take it to trial, giving them longer sentences for wasting
court time doesn't reduce the penalty.
Secondly,
what the heck is this remorse rubbish?
They
were sorry for what they did? Or for being caught and about to be
punished?
Anyway,
the judge gave them nine months' supervision and 200 hours' community
work.
One
of the scumbags was a thief as well, having nicked the victim's
mobile phone, and he had to pay $150 extra.
Now
the following is the way New Zealand courts need to act to instil
a bit of respect back into the system.
A
Melbourne chap found out to his cost that not all magistrates and
judges are weak-kneed wimps who will try to find any excuse to be
easy on crims.
Mirza
Zukanovic was in Moorabbin Magistrates Court on a matter when he
rather stupidly blew a large chewing gum bubble in front of the
beak, Magistrate Rodney Crisp.
Crisp
got slightly miffed but, instead of poking the bubble with his finger,
charged Zukanovic with contempt of court and biffed him in the slammer
for 30 days.
An
appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court freed the chewing-gum chomper,
who probably learned a bit of respect for the courts after getting
the fright of his life.
I
reckon New Zealand judges could learn a lot from that sort of example.
Come
on guys and gals of the bench, harden up will you.
richard@richardmoore.com
|