Richard Moore: Criminal light sentences

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