MikeB4:

 

Hands up those who were present throughout the hearing, heard in person the Judges decision and any reports he received.

 

I am happy to wait the outcome of the appeal and leave it there.

 

That's all very well and good -- in theory. And I normally would vigorously defend judicial decisions against uninformed criticisms. But uninformed criticisms aside, the reasoning process that is apparent from the written judicial decision itself indicated that the judge got the basic test wrong IMO. And ultimately this kind of thing is only a matter of opinion -- just because one High Court judge later on might uphold or reverse the decision, it doesn't necessarily mean that his/her reasoning is 100% correct either. Ultimately all people can do is that by virtue of a legitimate, legislatively determined process, the High Court will make a final ruling.

But it's silly to pretend that people with a proper understanding of legislative provisions and legal reasoning cannot or will not examine the original decision to test out its premises. As a lawyer I cannot see how paragraph [16] of Judge Davidson can pass for a proper analysis of the third limb of the test required under ss 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act, which together govern the granting of discharges without conviction. And the strong, absolute assertion by the judge that convictions would destroy the thug's rugby career is of itself highly questionable.