Four incidents converged recently – two from Western Australia and two from South Australia.
The two from WA were about a group of prisoners who dined on guinea pigs they had sourced while out on work release, and a German backpacker, Carolina Wilga, who was miraculously rescued after being lost in the Western Australian bush.
That second incident reminded me of South Australian tourist Shane Taylor who, a number of years ago, found himself in similar circumstances to both Ms Wilga and the prisoners.
As Taylor’s vehicle, like Ms Wilga’s, had become bogged, he followed the golden rule of the outback – ‘Stay With Your Vehicle!’ After about a week, however, and no rescue in sight, he decided to try his luck and find his own way out.
Hungry and thirsty after many days of hiking through rugged scrub, Taylor came across a small stream.
After a quick drink, Taylor attempted to walk on a log which had fallen across the stream, however about halfway across, the log broke and to his dismay fell into the creek and hit a platypus!
It was the first time he’d seen a platypus in the wild, and being hungry, decided to build a fire and cook it. At which point a Park Ranger appeared – much to Taylor’s relief!
Until, that is, the Park Ranger promptly booked him for ‘eating a protected and endangered species’!
Appearing in court, the magistrate read out the charge – ‘Eating a protected and/or endangered species’ – and asked Taylor if he had anything to say for himself.
‘As a matter of fact, I do, Your Honour!’
‘There I was, stuck in the middle of nowhere, my 4-wheel drive bogged to the axles, I’m doing the right thing – ‘staying with my vehicle!’ – but after about a week, when no-one came, I thought blow this, I’m taking my chances.
‘Well, after about another week hacking my way through endless scrub, I came across this creek which I had a big drink from. I then tried to cross the creek on a log which had fallen but about halfway over, the log broke, and would you believe it, Your Honour, it hit a platypus – yes, a platypus! – and squashed it.
‘Naturally, I felt sorry for the animal, but it was now dead, I was hungry, so I decided to cook the thing.
‘And just as I was chewing on it, along came a Park Ranger – and I must say, Your Honour, I was very, very pleased to see him!
‘And that’s when he said I was breaking the law by eating a threatened or endangered species!’
‘Well, that does sound perfectly reasonable to me’, said the magistrate, ‘Case dismissed!’
‘Thank you, Your Honour’, Taylor responded, ‘Thank you.’
Just as Taylor was about to leave the courtroom, the magistrate called out to him and said, ‘Before you go, Mr Taylor, I’m intrigued, what does platypus taste like?
‘Well, Your Honour, it tastes like a cross between koala and dolphin’.
Which brings us to the fourth incident about inconsistencies in the criminal justice system. Unlike the platypus story, this one is real.
The incident – and subsequent commentary on comparative justice in laws and sentencing – was brought to our attention by Adelaide journalist and broadcaster David Penberthy.
It concerned Mount Gambier MP Troy Bell who was sentenced last month to five years jail for stealing from a charitable fund, and a separate case in which a violent thug was permitted to walk free.
Penberthy wrote the following:
“Given the constant public outcry over soft sentences for people who commit serious crimes, it is worth reflecting on the thumping punishment meted out to former Mount Gambier MP Troy Bell.
“It is particularly worth reflecting on Mr Bell’s punishment in the context of the following letter to the editor written by hotelier Peter Hurley and published by The Advertiser:
‘I read with interest the article “Drunkard trashes and bashes” (The Advertiser, 2/10) detailing the sentencing of Samuel Ajal for wilful damage and assault following a violent rampage at the Arkaba Hotel.”
“Despite three hotel employees being assaulted – one of them bitten – and damage to gaming machines exceeding $80,000, Magistrate Davis offered Mr Ajal words of comfort, assuring him he was a “good person” who had done a stupid thing.
“We frequently hear of the right of workers to feel safe in their workplace. Yet in this case, those rights seem to have been disregarded.
“Mr Ajal received a suspended sentence, was placed on a good behaviour bond and is not required to compensate the Arkaba for the extensive damage he caused.
“This outcome falls well short of community expectations for such serious offences.
“The staff, the Arkaba Hotel and the wider public have been let down by a justice system that appears to prioritise the offender’s comfort over the victim’s wellbeing.
Peter Hurley AO, Fullarton’.
“Troy Bell set up a charity and then pilfered nearly half a million dollars for his own personal ends.
“His punishment? Five years jail, with a minimum two years and six months non-parole period.
“Bell remains well-liked in his community despite having done what he did. Lots of people have stories of how he helped them.
It begs the question, ‘Why was Troy Bell not described, as in the Arkaba case, as ‘a good person who did a stupid thing’?
As Penberthy points out, “Bell didn’t physically or emotionally hurt anyone. He didn’t hurt a child, and no-one will be permanently affected by his misconduct.
Perhaps the severity of the sentence was because Troy Bell was an MP?
Penberthy puts that notion to rest by comparing Bell’s crime with another disgraced political figure from the same region – former Labor MP Bernard Finnigan.
Finnigan was charged with 30 counts of having child pornography on his computer. Two of the charges eventually made it to court and he was found guilty of one of them.
Finnigan didn’t go to jail, receiving a 15-month suspended sentence and a $1,000 good behaviour bond.
Finnigan was propping up an industry which abused countless numbers of children.
As Penberthy points out, Troy Bell’s crime is not in the same league as Finnigan’s.
Peter Hurley said that during the attack on the Arkaba, Ajal screamed “You’re all going to die tonight.”
Such inconsistencies cannot be allowed to continue. If judges cannot, or will not, hand down appropriate sentences, then parliament must step in and write mandatory sentences into legislation.
If, however, judges are attempting to apply some kind of ‘social justice’ principles in their sentencing, they should note what the Bible tells us not once, but twice: “Do not favour the poor in court”.
Judges are to apply real justice, not ‘social justice’.
Favouring one group of citizens over another based on socio-economic or racial grounds is not only unjust, it also foolish. It always ends badly – especially for the favoured group.
Thank you for your support.