When the wrong message is sent

It’s not the first time that court judgments have left us bewildered, on occasions even shocked.

Maybe it’s because, for the layman, the complexities of a case brought before a magistrate or a judge, and the considerations that are made before a ruling is given, not to mention the intricacies of the law and how it is applied, are not easily understood.

There were times when, generally speaking, it was thought that the judgment handed down was too heavy in proportion to the crime committed. There were other instances when the reverse happened and people were acquitted (sometimes on a technicality or a mistake in the charge sheet) or else escaped with a low punishment than they would have deserved.

So what is wrong with the system?

It is easy to blame the magistrate or the judge. They are there not to look at faces – justice is blind, or supposedly so – but to take into consideration the evidence that is brought before them, and then decide according to the law. If a person is found not guilty, they are let go. If a guilty verdict is reached, then a punishment is given.

This punishment must be given within the parameters of the law, which establishes the minimum and maximum penalties that offenders may face if they are found guilty. Here, the magistrates and judges use their discretion, taking into consideration factors that could either mitigate or aggravate the punishment given. Let us also remember that whatever the judgment given in the first instance, appeals may be filed.

These restrictions – between the minimum and maximum penalty – are set by the legislators. Judges and magistrates have their hands tied by what is written down in the laws of the land, and although they are often accused of being too lenient or too harsh, they would be acting within the legal constraints imposed upon them.

We may agree or disagree with them when they choose a sentence closer to the minimum or one closer to the maximum. There are many times when, it must be said, the discretion they apply leaves too much to be desired. There have been also times when magistrates and judges used their judgments to pass their own message to the legislators.

Because ultimately it is up to the legislators – our Parliament – to give magistrates and judges the limits within which they must operate. When legislators fail to understand what society wants from them and/or when the laws of the land are not moving along with the societal changes and demands, then to the general public the members of the Bench would appear to not be taking the right decisions, when the real “culprits” would be the legislators.

We had one case these past few days when a judgment given by a magistrate was met with criticism. A driver was found guilty of running over a woman while driving at 110kph as she was crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing. The injuries sustained were serious and long-lasting and her lifestyle and that of her family changed forever on that fateful day. She lost her job as a bank manager and is now unable to carry out the simplest of tasks. The driver was given a one-year jail-term, suspended for four years; had his driving licence suspended for three years and was fined €1,200, apart from court expenses. His young age stopped the magistrate from inflicting a harsher penalty. To many, this was a very lenient punishment.

The message that has been sent in this case – but it is just the most recent example, because there are others that preceded it – is the wrong one. It makes life less precious than it really is and gives a sense of impunity. If drivers can get away with a suspended sentence and a measly fine even when they ruin the life of the pedestrian they hit while driving dangerously, then the message that is being sent to drivers is to continue to take unnecessary risks and to drive way above the speed limit. And isn’t it discriminatory that, since the accused was 20 at the time, he was given a softer punishment? If one is old enough to drive a car, then one should be old enough to take on every responsibility that this brings with it.

We can have as many educational campaigns as we want about the need to drive carefully and to follow traffic regulations, but if there is no deterrent, or if the deterrents are weak and not punishing enough, then all would be futile.

We all know what the situation is like on our roads. Suffice it to say that last year saw a record number of deaths on our roads, one every two weeks, and many other accidents which physically, mentally and emotionally altered the lives of those who luckily survived, and the lives of their families too. It has become the norm for media to receive reports about bad accidents taking place, almost daily, and at times more than once a day.

The legislators would do well to look into the regulations that are in place and enact stiffer laws which will hopefully serve as a deterrent and which would enable judges and magistrates to be more strict when they hand out their judgments.