I'M hoping the community will voice its opinion on the front page story.
Our courtrooms are meant to reflect community standards and expectations.
I'm wondering whether the sentence handed down to June Wogandt, who pleaded guilty for failing to adequately feed two horses, is one that is deemed appropriate by the wider community?
Let me preface what I'm about to say by stating that I understand why Magistrate Graeme Tatnell handed down the sentence he did.
Wogandt is elderly and terminally ill, with no previous criminal history.
Imprisonment, even a suspended sentence, would probably be viewed by most observers as excessive.
Fining her seems pointless, as she does not have the funds to pay.
Mind you, that currently leaves the RSPCA out of pocket for the $12,000 they spent to care for and rehabilitate two emaciated horses.
I understand that trying to figure out an appropriate punishment is a challenge.
But the fact remains that two horses were in terribly poor condition on June Wogandt's property and they were to some extent dependent on her.
The court heard the only time a vet had attended to the horses in five years was when it was ordered by the RSPCA.
Was justice done for those two poor souls? You be the judge.