Certainly agree that there are vast grounds for appeal, and neatly combined could make for a highly compelling argument to quash the lower court's sentence, however I meant that the magistrate didn't necessarily overstep his mandate in terms of adducing the similar facts in each case to deal with them as a group. On verdict I agree, on sentence I don't agree at all, and on appeal I agree with you.
Wasn't suggesting that any lawyer who couldn't achieve a result with a section 10 sentence holds the level of competence of a first year lawyer, just more that the OP's son should have spoken up or had someone with him who could speak on his behalf given the mental troubles infecting his level of awareness in what is really a trivial matter. And that's not to suggest a first year lawyer is incompetent, just obviously that the ability for success and efficiency is lacking because of a lack of experience.
