Different treatment

I was greatly disappointed to read in The Times (July 27) of a sentence handed down by our courts some time ago. A man was given a six-month jail term suspended for two years for a bomb hoax call at the MIA. He was also privileged to have his name and...

I was greatly disappointed to read in The Times (July 27) of a sentence handed down by our courts some time ago. A man was given a six-month jail term suspended for two years for a bomb hoax call at the MIA. He was also privileged to have his name and employment designation banned from publication.

Some months ago another man was jailed for nine months for a similar offence at the law courts. The court rightly said in its sentence that it wanted to send the message about the seriousness of the offence in view of the working time lost due to the frequent false alarms.

Can anyone of your readers kindly come up with an explanation for this different treatment?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.