“At least”

As usual, it’s difficult to determine the actual sentence handed down to Marcus Einfeld from the typically useless News Ltd reports:

FORMER Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld has been sentenced to at least two years jail for repeatedly lying about a traffic offence.

“At least”? Uh, no, what was the actual sentence? I had to check on AustLII to find it:

For the offence of perjury — sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of one year two months commencing on 20 March 2009 and expiring on 19 May 2010 and a balance of the term of seven months commencing on 20 May 2010 and expiring on 19 December 2010.
For the offence of perverting the course of justice — sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of one year three months commencing on 20 December 2009 and expiring on 19 March 2011 and a balance of the term of one year commencing on 20 March 2011 and expiring on 19 March 2012.
Parole order for release on 19 March 2011.

Which is, by my count, three years, although divided in a slightly convoluted way. And assuming he’s ultimately parolled after two years, that’s not actually the same as being “free”.

But News Ltd insists on going, as usual, with its disingenuous line of making sentencing seem lighter than it really is (by constantly reporting minimum terms rather than full terms), so they can then sell advertising space by complaining about it later – which leads to posts like this.

And fairly non-constructively harsh sentences like Einfeld’s.

The prosecutor in this case argued that

Einfeld should be jailed, saying the counts were “in the worst case category” of such offences.

How? Wouldn’t the “worst case category” be instances where someone was lying to get a violent criminal acquitted, or an innocent person convicted of a violent crime? Isn’t that a much more serious instance of perjury than someone trying to get out of a speeding fine?

And look at the sentencing remarks regarding the mitigating factors in Einfeld’s case, including his health, his age, the punishment he’s already effectively received (“extra-curial punishment”), the years of contribution to the community – if three years is what he got even after considering those factors, what would the judge have given him without them?

What’s really gained by jailing this man? Deterrence? Everything even up to this point is a pretty major deterrent, and there are other sentencing options which punish more constructively than jail. (Maybe there was a fear that Einfeld, having spent so long working for the community, wouldn’t have found doing more community work enough of a punishment.)

This outcome looks to me suspiciously like a legal system trying very hard not to look like it’s going easy on its own – lest the rabble rousers make too much sport with it – and bending over too far in the other direction.

On the other hand, it can’t have been an easy sentencing decision, and it’s very easy to criticise from the sidelines, having not heard a jot of evidence in the case and not having to balance the competing factors myself.

But what’s the internet for, other than opining on stuff for which we’ll never have to take responsibility, from the comfort of our own armchairs? Feel free to have at it in the comments. Everyone else has.

UPDATE: Talk about petty.