Yeah 4 years is far more adequate......

for punching a person in the face and then kicking their head 'like a rugby ball' causing death.

who's the genious that decided that 2yrs was acceptable in the first place?? do these sentences largely dependant on the judge's mood on the day???

http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10692943

P.S.

I realise I haven't posted up here in a while so in case people are wondering, the bit about 4yrs being more accurate was definitely sarcasm......

these posts are better suited for the rabid law and order mob in the lounge

I'm just curious as to how a judge can get their sentencing that far off the mark, that once the sentence is appealed it's virtually doubled!!

doesn't really make our justice system look very consistent or robust........when you can have two judges serving the same system with one of them handing out punishments almost 50% lighter than the other for the exact same crime.

still rabid?

as they said, it was the minimum that could be applied.

Dunno - still seems a bit light. Intentionally kicking someone in the head like that when you know it is forceful enough to kill = verging on murder.