http://nsmb.com/tineke-kraal-sentenced-sabotage-case/

Some reasonably balanced reporting here from NSMB.

“I therefore suspend the passing of sentence and propose a three year period of probation.” He went on to outline the terms of probation, which included keeping the peace and reporting to a probation officer the next day. “You are to complete 150 hours of community service within the first 18 months of your probation.” Judge Milne denied Crown Council’s suggestion that these hours be served with the local trail association.

I hope it at least serves as a warning to those idiots who seem to think everyone else shouldn’t be somewhere. Not quite sure how good she will be at digging or making crazy bridges though so probably not worth pushing for the community service with the trail builders.

this bit from the Judge seems a bit odd to me especially since she pleaded guilty so now doubt about her guilt:

“The media storm and public villification online and threats to her, it seems to me are also mitigating factors.”

Edit I don’t approve of threats or online and media frenzy but I don’t see it as mitigating sentencing

Possibly a warning from the judge to keep online idiots in check?

I’d prefer her to get an unmitigated sentence and see those making threats online charged and sentenced appropriately though.

Tensions run high on the north shore sometimes, people are so defensive of their ‘pristine forest habitat’* that they lose site of common sense.

I still wonder if the lady had really considered the implications of where she was placing sticks and rocks, I just can’t quite believe she wished serious bodily harm on anyone, but Skull had some steep rock sections where you didn’t want to suddenly be jamming on your front brake! 😯

Great wee trail though, only rode it once, in the rain, not realising where it was, subsequently only went back on foot after my bike was stolen 🙁

*clear felled at least once in the last century and still littered with artifacts of old logging works.

Seems a pretty fair and well balanced assessment by the judge. If you read the whole article it shows that the judge specifically stated she had insufficient appreciation on the consequences of her actions.

What must gall her the most is being judged to be in the wrong by establishment. She clearly felt she was justified to do what she was doing.

The media storm and public villification online and threats to her, it seems to me are also mitigating factors

I am not sure the public really disliking what you have done somehow lessens the crimes you have committed- with that sort of thinking do they post on here?

Threats are not acceptable though

I am not sure the public really disliking what you have done somehow lessens the crimes you have committed- with that sort of thinking do they post on here?

I think the Judges point was that the sentence had to balance a lot of things, from locking her up to keep the public safe at one extreme, to punishing her, to providing an example/deterrent to others. My impression was that he was making reference to the fact she was clearly punished by public opinion, and that would be enough on it’s own to prevent similar actions by others because no one should be in the opinion that they are doing some sort of public service by vandalizing trails.

Therefore a harsh sentence as punishment or as a deterrent wasn’t needed, she knew what she did was wrong, and wasn’t going to do it again, and other people aren’t going to copy her.

Just finished reading this; So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed

Whether it mitigates her crime or not I’m not sure, but public shaming definitely appears to have more impact than just being on the receiving end of some name calling and anonymous threats.

Cheers TINAS

Not sure i agree with their reasoning but at least I understand it

I am not sure the public really disliking what you have done somehow lessens the crimes you have committed-

No – but the great majority of crimes go un-noticed by the wider public, they don’t each attract their own media campaign and online outcry- thats a factor that other sentencing decisions the court makes that day or that week don’t have to take account for.