Should have got 20 years. These are pillars of the community, and therefore trust our lives with.

   So his law practice now goes under and people will lose their livelihoods. We should be creative with sentencing. How about the judge offering him a choice a) 10 years porridge or b) For the next 10 year he has to work 2.5 days per week for FREE for the crown or for victims he swindled. Failure to work the amount means he reverts to sentence option a) Porridge.

   The point I was making was not that he shouldn't be in prison - of course he should - but that, had he killed someone he would have probably got off with a lighter sentence.

The world has gone mad.

   Why do people always "bang-on" about "he didn't murder anyone?" NO he didn't and I agree, as do most people that sentencing against murderers and other and serious crimes are often too lenient compared to sentences for crimes like this. However, this man has stolen a great deal of money when in a position of trust... a greedy and selfish cowardly crime and he deserved to be punished for it. Although this was'nt a violent rime, i'm sure the vistim has suffered a great deal of emotion anguish and stress because of it. Who cares if he has to pay the money back, that's like saying you can just take and steal what you want as long as you pay it back when and if you get caught out. It's the other ridiculous sentences that need to be reviewed, not this one.

   Yes, it was a serious offence, and of course he should go to prison.

BUT, he didn't kill anyone, and his victim has been reimbursed for his losses.

It is utterly ridiculous that we have dangerous people out on the streets because the prisons are full, and yet this guy gets a massive sentence like this.

It just shows where the priorities lie in this godforsaken country.

   So, 10 years for theft, yet a murderer gets out after merely two... so I think we can safely assume this 'lawyer' will be out in time for Christmas.