Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:55 am
#1857754
But it's not "an expensive mistake". The court decided at trial that it was a deliberate fraudulent act; a forgery (two actually).
Checking the ANO for these offences (OK, nerdy), if the magistates had considered the offences to be really so serious, they could have sent them up to the Crown Court for sentence where the option of up to two years nick would be available for each offence. They clearly didn't think it was all that bad.
He was convicted at trial (ie he pleaded not guilty), so that will have put the penalty and the costs up a chunk too.
As others have pointed out, best guess is this offender is a significantly wealthy man. The fine is intended to be a punishment so it's supposed to smart, however rich the offender is.
If he really feels badly done by he can appeal either or both of the conviction or sentence.
Checking the ANO for these offences (OK, nerdy), if the magistates had considered the offences to be really so serious, they could have sent them up to the Crown Court for sentence where the option of up to two years nick would be available for each offence. They clearly didn't think it was all that bad.
He was convicted at trial (ie he pleaded not guilty), so that will have put the penalty and the costs up a chunk too.
As others have pointed out, best guess is this offender is a significantly wealthy man. The fine is intended to be a punishment so it's supposed to smart, however rich the offender is.
If he really feels badly done by he can appeal either or both of the conviction or sentence.
lobstaboy liked this