Have review to help judges ensure fairer sentencing
I read the report “Man jailed 3 months for drunken assault on cabbie” (Feb 2) with disgust and disappointment. I feel that the sentence the prosecution sought was not on a par with the seriousness of the offence.
I read the report “Man jailed 3 months for drunken assault on cabbie” (Feb 2) with disgust and disappointment. I feel that the sentence the prosecution sought was not on a par with the seriousness of the offence.
The District Judge commented that had the prosecution asked for a more extensive jail term, he would have given it because the “starting point” for such offences is 12 months’ imprisonment. The reason given by the prosecution is what I would expect to hear from a defence lawyer.
Discounting nine months because the accused paid $9,100 to cover the victim’s medical costs and loss of earnings, and spent six weeks in remand, does not seem to be a balanced equation.
Does it not suggest that money can buy a reduced sentence, hence favouring the rich?
The victim was reported to have suffered a deep gash on his forehead and permanent nerve damage owing to the assault.
Besides accounting for the medical cost and loss of earnings, did the prosecution consider the cost of permanent nerve damage with respect to the victim’s quality of life when determining the length of sentence?
I applaud the judge’s impartiality and frankness.
Perhaps there could be a review to encourage judges to ensure fairer sentencing when they see fit.