It is salutary that public concern about the sentencing process in the courts is, at long last, being noted. Public concern will not go away if it is smothered by legalistic foam which does not address the core issue.

The core issue is not about the "parameters of the law". It is about the disconcerting nature of court sentencing which, at times, creates the impression that the law is not dispensed equally and equitably.

It is also about the uneven degree of tolerance exercised by the courts within the existing "parameters". This makes it more likely for one to get fined for parking wrongly than for prostitution. It is about the uneven criteria relating to the ban on the publication of the identity of persons facing court proceedings.

In this regard, the Chief Justice felt the need to state in court, as reported in The Times (April 7) that such bans should only be ordered in those cases covered by the law. Otherwise, the Chief Justice warned, the courts could easily end up applying the ban on the basis of the individual's status, and this would create a form of unacceptable discrimination.

Marse-Anne Farrugia, judicial assistant and legal secretary at the Office of the Chief Justice, did not address this broad issue when she drew up her learned paper that dealt with this subject in The Times (April 13).

Dr Farrugia highlighted the absurdity of the Maltese legal framework within which the courts have to operate viz: drugs cases where the maximum punishment according to law can be life imprisonment, rape cases (maximum punishment, nine years), defilement of minors (maximum punishment, unless aggravated, three years), cases involving slight bodily harm (maximum punishment, three months). She proceeded to point out that "in these, and in virtually all cases, the legislator allows a wide margin of discretion in the punishment that may be awarded in order to cater for all the circumstances, objective and subjective, of each case".

She goes on to point out that "this wide margin of appreciation is reflected also in the fact that the legislator has allowed for non-custodial measures, like probation and conditional discharge, to be applied even in cases of crimes that carry a maximum punishment of seven years".

This interpretation sounds as if the legislator is to blame if the courts err in the exercise of their discretion.

No, sir! Fairness means balance and equity. The courts are expected to be consistent as well as logical, when they dispense justice, however wide the legal parameters in which they operate.

Public opinion is, quite rightly, upset if and when it sees people effectively let off the hook by being given probation when convicted of crimes such as theft, drug trafficking and abuse, corruption of minors, paedophilia, arson and causing serious injury.

Public concern escalates when the crime rate rises and court sentences get lighter, and when the same wrongdoers are repeatedly conceded suspended sentences or probation for very serious crimes.

The public perception - which I share - is that justice has not been seen to be done in a significant number of reported cases.

I have raised these concerns in Parliament several times. Mine was like a voice in the desert.

There is no evidence that things are improving in the Inferior Courts, notwithstanding the fact that opinion polls have since confirmed the high degree of public concern.

I fail to find an explanation why a foreigner was imprisoned for two months for illegally importing a gecko, whereas, on various occasions, persons found to have imported songbirds illegally, in atrocious conditions, did not have to spend a single day in confinement. I cannot understand why criminals are put on probation dozens of times for repeated offences before being taught a lesson.

The least that one could expect with urgency is a clear-cut sentencing policy that results in a dispensation of justice which convinces public opinion that it is even and non-discriminatory.

Public opinion rightly expects the law to deliver sentences that do justice to the victims of crime and that serve as an effective deterrent to criminal activity.