Well folks, who can guess what happened in the case of Emily Toner, the crown prosecutor who nipped out from Court to visit the supermarket where she deliberately concealed and stole $199 worth of groceries, and on this occasion was caught? Yep, you guessed it, DISCHARGE WITHOUT CONVICTION!

It’s reassuring to know that our legal profession can now retain the valued membership of a thief and that she will be able to continue prosecuting men, the truly bad criminals, for such dastardly crimes as waving at their children passing by in a car.

Ms Toner gave the excuse of an eating addiction that made her do it and the Court appears to have seen that as sufficient excuse. So maybe we can now expect gamblers who steal to get more money to put into pokie machines to have sufficient excuse too and to be discharged without conviction for their thievery. Well, yes perhaps, but you can be sure the Court’s mercy will only be extended to female gamblers, especially if they are also lawyers.

Similarly, most other human conditions that are accepted by Courts as mitigating factors when they affect women are seldom recognized when it comes to men’s behaviour. So when a father reacts with aggression or a minor breach of a protection order, his deep grief at having his relationship and contact with his children wrecked through false allegations is generally dismissed as a mitigating factor. The recent NZ reduction in the legal significance of provocation was based on the attitude that men should not be rewarded for any loss of self-control.

Isn’t it good to know that our Courts can still find ways to excuse women for nearly anything?