I think sentences like these have to carry a detterent message. These two idiots are unlikely to do something similar again but now other idiots might think twice or even three times.
Problem is, idiots who are going to do something similar dont care / dont have the sense to realise what any punishment will be.
Whilst appalled by their actions and a supporter of climate justice, I don't think the court of public opinion should influence sentencing, and from the reporting, I get the impression that's what's happened here. What next? State sanctioned vigilantism?
of course public opinion should influence sentencing if something affronts the country (as long as its within agreed legislated limits), justice must not only be done, but also SEEN to be done. If they had been sentenced to a non- custodial punishment (or short term sentence) there would have been an outcry, the law would be seen to be ineffectual, and there would be no deterrence for future similar situations.
You could apply that logic to any number of the cases posters have quoted for comparative purposes above to argue public opinion was ignored, so if, as you say, public perception should be taken into account in sentencing, it isn't always. Who decides when it should be and when not?
Whilst appalled by their actions and a supporter of climate justice, I don't think the court of public opinion should influence sentencing, and from the reporting, I get the impression that's what's happened here. What next? State sanctioned vigilantism?
Judges have to adhere to sentencing guidelines, that is what the judge did in this case.
Not saying she didn't, but like I say, I don't think public opinion should factor into it. What mechanism could be used to capture and evaluate that anyway? Reading the papers, watching the news, scrolling through posts on social media, asking down the pub?
Meanwhile, youths carrying knives just get warnings/community service
Just because "youths carrying knives" don't get the sentence they deserve, even though they should, doesn't mean other offences get lighter sentences as well.
Meanwhile, youths carrying knives just get warnings/community service
Just because "youths carrying knives" don't get the sentence they deserve, even though they should, doesn't mean other offences get lighter sentences as well.
fair comment, although I don't think 4 years 3 months is a commensurate sentence for their idiotic crime
However much I hate what they did, it does seem an excessive punishment.
Cutting down trees isn't a crime, the National Trust themselves cut down trees if they might damage historical properties.
It's illegal to cut down a tree without the owner's permission. They did not have permission, so it is a crime for which they have been sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.
However much I hate what they did, it does seem an excessive punishment.
Cutting down trees isn't a crime, the National Trust themselves cut down trees if they might damage historical properties.
True, but it isn't just any tree as others have pointed out, and there wasn't a motive they'll confess to. For context. Hallam the JSO protestor got five years, since reduced on appeal to four for his disruptions, and I see they've now changed tactics. Can't help but think it's the deterrent effect kicking in. Still, thank goodness the authorities are silencing the alarm rather than putting out the fire eh?
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
It’s very common for sentences to run concurrently when they are related so I don’t think the judge has been lenient here. I’m all for the pond life of society getting strong sentences for their misdemeanours but the length of sentence seems incredibly long. Whether you look at it in isolation or in comparison to other newsworthy crimes of late.
If I cut down a neighbour's tree, it wouldn't end up in a criminal court.
And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.
Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
If I cut down a neighbour's tree, it wouldn't end up in a criminal court.
And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.
Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.
The scale, intent and irreversibility of the criminal damage to the tree is the main reason they were sentenced to longer terms than the two women who threw paint onto the glass protecting the painting.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.
If I cut down a neighbour's tree, it wouldn't end up in a criminal court.
And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.
Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.
The scale, intent and irreversibility of the criminal damage to the tree is the main reason they were sentenced to longer terms than the two women who threw paint onto the glass protecting the painting.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.
The 500 year old Enfield Oak tree cut down by the pub was a far greater ecological and historical loss, but there's no court case at all.
If I cut down a neighbour's tree, it wouldn't end up in a criminal court.
And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.
Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.
The scale, intent and irreversibility of the criminal damage to the tree is the main reason they were sentenced to longer terms than the two women who threw paint onto the glass protecting the painting.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.
The 500 year old Enfield Oak tree cut down by the pub was a far greater ecological and historical loss, but there's no court case at all.
I'm sorry, I haven't got time to comment on every post of whataboutatree.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which
owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples
of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread
shock and bewilderment.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which
owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples
of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread
shock and bewilderment.
I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which
owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples
of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread
shock and bewilderment.
I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo.
Just to repeat what I posted earlier, if he had not taken into account the widespread distress caused as an aggravating factor, he could have uplifted the starting point, based the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." He chose - correctly - not to do both. So, if at appeal it is decided that he should not have considered the widespread distress caused, the sentence could, in effect, be unchanged, as consideration would then be given to the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which
owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples
of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread
shock and bewilderment.
I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo.
Just to repeat what I posted earlier, if he had not taken into account the widespread distress caused as an aggravating factor, he could have uplifted the starting point, based the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." He chose - correctly - not to do both. So, if at appeal it is decided that he should not have considered the widespread distress caused, the sentence could, in effect, be unchanged, as consideration would then be given to the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
For others to decide. Not you.
So had I sent a note, or others like me, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, claiming that I was pleased to see the back of it and thought it was an eyesore, should my view and others like it have weighed in the balance do you think?
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which
owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples
of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread
shock and bewilderment.
I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo.
Just to repeat what I posted earlier, if he had not taken into account the widespread distress caused as an aggravating factor, he could have uplifted the starting point, based the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." He chose - correctly - not to do both. So, if at appeal it is decided that he should not have considered the widespread distress caused, the sentence could, in effect, be unchanged, as consideration would then be given to the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
For others to decide. Not you.
So had I sent a note, or others like me, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, claiming that I was pleased to see the back of it and thought it was an eyesore, should my view and others like it have weighed in the balance do you think?
Such a good point in that the public’s reaction is surely subjective. I think 99% on here think what happened was wrong but in reality do Joe Blogge really give a monkeys. It certainly ain’t a talking point when I’m talking bollocks in the pub with my mates.
Some facts which might be useful to the ongoing debate as to whether the sentence was too harsh (or otherwise).
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting
point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." However, he didn't do this as it would be "double counting". In other words, he could have ignored the "public opinion" and outrage caused and still ended up with the same sentence length by substantially uplifting the starting point, within the guidlines, due to the fact the damage was caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
Measured how and by who? People not fully aquatinted with the facts as presented in court, but by what they see in the media? That's the way to go. Why not bring back lynch mobs?
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
Measured by the Judge, based on a statement made by Mr Andrew Poad of the National Trust, which
owned the tree. The contents of Mr Poad’s statement and the examples
of heart-felt messages from members of the public he has provided, reflected the Judge's impression from media accounts of the public’s reaction, which was one of widespread
shock and bewilderment.
I'll be surprised if the sentences aren't reduced on appeal then. Could have imposed the sentence without compromising it by bringing pubic perceptions as influenced by the media into it for the look of the thing. Good defence lawyers be all over that imo.
Just to repeat what I posted earlier, if he had not taken into account the widespread distress caused as an aggravating factor, he could have uplifted the starting point, based the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset." He chose - correctly - not to do both. So, if at appeal it is decided that he should not have considered the widespread distress caused, the sentence could, in effect, be unchanged, as consideration would then be given to the fact that damage has been caused to a "heritage and/or cultural asset."
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
For others to decide. Not you.
So had I sent a note, or others like me, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, claiming that I was pleased to see the back of it and thought it was an eyesore, should my view and others like it have weighed in the balance do you think?
If you had sent a note to the National Trust to tell them you were pleased to see the back of it and you thought it was an eyesore, your comments would be weighed against the vast outpouring of messages the NT received that showed the opposite view.
The NT received more than 2,500 messages from members and from the public expressing sorrow, grief, devastation, anger, frustration, disgust, disbelief and condemnation. There are no recorded instances of anyone writing in support of the crime. So, even if you had sent that message for whatever reason, NT's evidence would still be that they had received widespread condemnation.
My opinion is that the Judge acted properly. Is there anything in his sentencing remarks that makes you think he didn't and that therefore, "good defence lawyers will be all over it?"
The point I've been striving to make all along is the danger in factoring public opinion to sentencing when the public aren't fully appraised of the case facts and are relying on other sources for the information that shapes their views. That's a general point. If our legal system allows for that, then the answer to your question is no.
What I will say to conclude my point is that I expect most judges think they've applied sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly, and yet sentences can and do get reduced on appeal. Hallam's did (the JSO protestor) from 5 years to 4. Were the guidelines there applied properly in the first instance? Seems not, or else why was it reduced. I guess we'll only know the answer in this case should an appeal be lodged, but you've already made you mind up. I'll wait to see.
Comments
Cutting down trees isn't a crime, the National Trust themselves cut down trees if they might damage historical properties.
They will both be released from prison, but will continue to serve their sentences, after 40% of their term has been served, which means they will each serve one year, eight months and twelve days in prison. They get credit for time already served. Daniel Graham has been in prison since 21 December 2024, Adam Carruthers has been in prison since 9 May 2025.
The judge took into account the very widespread distress caused by the felling of the tree and substantially uplifted the starting point of the sentencing to reflect this. However, he also had the opportunity to uplift the starting point further, based the fact that damage has been caused
The sentences were for two offences: the damage to the tree and the damage to Hadrian's Wall. The judge decided these sentences can be served concurrently. If he had decided to run them consecutively, it would have added another six months to each of their sentences.
I’m all for the pond life of society getting strong sentences for their misdemeanours but the length of sentence seems incredibly long. Whether you look at it in isolation or in comparison to other newsworthy crimes of late.
I bought a house once with a tree/TPO in the garden
It was a tree for God sake. The wall was more historical imo. It was built by the Romans 2 thousand years ago. The tree just grew by itself.
Not saying they should not have been punished but people viewing child sex abuse images & youths carrying knives get far less sentences.
And how original is Hadrian's Wall? Much of the stone was removed for building works, while much of the remaining wall has been rebuilt or repaired down the years.
Yes I get that a prison sentence is deserved, but the JSO attackers on the Van Goph Sunflowers got 24 and 20 months, not 4 years.
Just apply the law based on the evidence. The wider public should have no say in that.
If you want to view van Gogh's Sunflowers painting you can. If you want to visit the sycamore tree, you can't.
An appeal would likely fail, expensively, unless it can be shown the Judge did not apply sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly. He clearly did.
So had I sent a note, or others like me, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, claiming that I was pleased to see the back of it and thought it was an eyesore, should my view and others like it have weighed in the balance do you think?
The NT received more than 2,500 messages from members and from the public expressing sorrow, grief, devastation, anger, frustration, disgust, disbelief and condemnation. There are no recorded instances of anyone writing in support of the crime. So, even if you had sent that message for whatever reason, NT's evidence would still be that they had received widespread condemnation.
My opinion is that the Judge acted properly. Is there anything in his sentencing remarks that makes you think he didn't and that therefore, "good defence lawyers will be all over it?"
What I will say to conclude my point is that I expect most judges think they've applied sentencing guidelines appropriately or properly, and yet sentences can and do get reduced on appeal. Hallam's did (the JSO protestor) from 5 years to 4. Were the guidelines there applied properly in the first instance? Seems not, or else why was it reduced. I guess we'll only know the answer in this case should an appeal be lodged, but you've already made you mind up. I'll wait to see.