If someone wandered through a busy crowd of adults and children waving a loaded gun, let off a few shots and eventually hit a couple of people, causing serious injuries to one of them, what would happen to that person?
I would imagine they would be dealt with harshly inthe courts and sent to jail.
So why is it when Janine Mathie drove through Kuirau Park on a Saturday morning near the busy market - at a breath alcohol level so unbelievably high it was amazing she could even stand and hit two people, causing serious injuries to one of them - that she was handed down a sentence of four months' home detention.
In my view, there's not much difference between the two crimes. Her car was a weapon, and, although no one was killed, an Auckland woman is still suffering from her serious injuries months after the incident.
Mathie's breath alcohol reading of 1881 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath is one of the highest recorded in New Zealand - let alone for a woman. The legal limit is 400.
What is even more unbelievable about the sentence she was given is Mathie is a repeat offender. Only three years ago she was caught drink-driving with another huge reading of 1603 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.
Mathie said she had drunk a lot the night before with friends and had attended a champagne breakfast that morning where she had two glasses of wine.
Judge David Ruth said that was "nonsense" and queried if her two drinks were buckets. In sentencing her, he said she avoided being given a jail term by a "relatively fine margin".
Why was that? She clearly lied about the circumstances leading up to the event so why was she given leniency?
The judge told Mathie she was an alcoholic, but I fear he is only setting her up to fail by not giving her a jail sentence. Her home detention conditions include she not consume drugs and alcohol. She needs to be locked away from any temptations.
