Editorial: Justice unevenly applied sends wrong message

A judge's decision to discharge an Air New Zealand pilot caught riding a scooter without a helmet and at more than two-and-a-half times the alcohol limit raises serious questions about the use of discretion in the justice system.

It adds weight to the suggestion people are treated differently when they appear before the courts depending on their public profile or their occupation.

The decision also undermines campaigns against drink driving that suggest drink drivers face the full force of the justice system after they are caught.

In making his decision this week, Judge Ajit Singh said a drink-driving conviction would stop Aucklander George Robert Meyer, 32, working as a long-haul pilot and granted his application for a discharge to maintain a clean record. Meyer flies to Canada as part of his job and his lawyer, Zoe Reid, said that if convicted, he would not be able to enter the country for up to five years.

The judge described the offending as in the "lower to medium range in terms of gravity" and - oddly - the prosecution did not oppose his bid for a discharge without conviction.

Meyer was instead banned from driving for six months and ordered to pay $193 to cover the cost of the blood testing.

He had earlier made a $1000 donation to charity.

Judge Sing ruled the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

Yes, the consequences on Meyer's life would have been dramatic but so should they be. He should have been aware of the potential consequences of his actions on his career.

He had a lot to lose, as do many others who appear before the courts, but that does not mean he should have been treated differently.

Decisions such as this open the justice system up to further criticism.

Would Joe Bloggs have escaped conviction if he appeared in court on similar charges? I doubt it.

And it's not the first case of its kind.

In 2010, Judge Phil Gittos elected not to convict police Sergeant Jason Lamont after he admitted driving while 50 per cent over the legal alcohol limit.

The police officer's experience and standing in the force meant it would not be in the public interest to have him convicted and out of a job.

This, as one commentator pointed out at the time, despite the fact drink driving has been a focus of police efforts to lower the road toll and the fact the police would never cut any slack to a member of the public who was well over the blood-alcohol limit.

They also pointed out that decision flew in the face of an earlier conviction of a Northland officer from drink driving.

Senior Constable Ross Kneebone pleaded guilty but also applied for a discharge, but Judge Duncan Harvey did not agree, saying Kneebone should not be treated differently from others.

That judge made the right decision.

On any given court day, you will see offenders, minus the high-powered career, accepting their guilt and the sentence that is subsequently handed down to them. We should not expect less of people who enjoy the benefits of a high-powered occupation.

People appearing before the courts should not expect a different outcome because of their occupation.

I accept there needs to be provision within the Sentencing Act for judges to use their discretion.

It would be of no benefit if leaders in their field were unable to carry out important public services because they had been convicted of relatively minor conviction.

But this was not the case with Meyer. He should have been treated the same as anyone else.