OCCASIONALLY, when reading reports under Scales of Justice in your paper which I regularly do, I am intrigued by some of the inconsistent sentencing for seemingly similar offences.

Under Scales of Justice (Oxford Mail, January 30), one offender admitted driving at 40mph in a maximum 30mph zone and was banned from driving for six months, while another one who admitted speeding at 122mph in a maximum 70mph zone was disqualified from holding a driving licence for only 24 days! It seemed to me that the latter case warranted at least a similar sentence to that handed out in the first one!

In another example, an offender damaged someone’s carpet and was ordered to pay £250 compensation (presumably the cost of the repair) and £85 costs, but another person who admitted assaulting two people, each at different locations, was ordered to pay £200 compensation and costs of £100! I think most of your readers would agree that the second offence warranted a much harsher sentence! 

Last year, almost every driver who was convicted of exceeding the drink-drive limit was banned from driving for up to two years, but I noted that at least two people who were convicted of driving whilst well over the drink-drive limit, weren’t banned from driving! Why weren’t they?

When obvious inconsistencies are apparent in sentencing, your readers would, I’m sure, welcome hearing about any explanatory comments made by magistrates when handing out sentences to culprits. 

DAVID ROLFE
Burford Road
Witney