Magistrates and judges rightly have discretion when deciding sentences for lawbreakers because the lawmakers recognise that every case is different and it would be impossible to decide punishments to fit every single circumstance.

In drugs cases, Magistrates and judges, as a matter of Government policy, now have the option to refer drug addicts for treatment and counselling under the Alternatives to Incarceration programme if the accused admit they have a problem and if the offence justifies it.

If the accused is a major drugs dealer, then they will almost certainly go to prison because ATI and the Government draw a line between users and dealers. That's correct, and the policy generally has public support.

It is also true that Magistrates and judges are sometimes privy to information of which the public may not be aware about a particular defendant. Much of the information contained in social inquiry reports and psychiatric reports are not read out in court, but do influence the decision of the judge or Magistrate.

That's probably right, since much of the information is private and would do no one much good if it was public knowledge.

But that does not make judges and Magistrates omniscient, and it does not remove the public's right to object if it feels that sentences are either too lenient or too harsh, or that sentencing is not being carried out evenly.

Yesterday in Magistrates' Court, Acting Senior Magistrate Carlisle Greaves criticised this newspaper for carrying a story questioning his decision to give a man a conditional discharge for causing actual bodily harm. In the case in question, the man hit his 27-year-old stepdaughter, who was holding a baby, with a machete on her buttocks and across her hand, cutting three fingers in doing so.

Prior to attacking her, he had forced his way into the house through a window.

In making his decision, Mr. Greaves said: "Women should learn you can't expect to push around your man and not get some response, in the same way you can't expect to push a woman around and not get a response. It's natural to get a response. The response of the stepdaughter didn't seem unreasonable. He thought in his house she should not be getting in his business."

It was also reported that the man and his wife, who had dropped assault charges previously, were now trying to get back together.

Mr. Greaves said: "He is both victim and persecutor it seems."

On that basis, he gave the man a conditional discharge.

That may well have been the right decision based on what the public was not told, but Mr. Greaves should not be surprised that representatives of groups like the Women's Resource Centre disagree with him.

The Centre, which does sterling work to help women who are the victims of domestic violence and sees the effects of violence against women every day, should object when in a case of this kind, the assailant will not even receive a mark on his record.

But Mr. Greaves gives the impression that he is condoning violence when he says that "women should learn you can't expect to push around your man and not get some response ..." coupled with handing down a conditional discharge.

The average person will get the idea that you can break through a window and attack a defenceless teenager with a machete and not expect any consequences.

If Magistrates and judges do not give out the message that violence is not condoned in this community, then groups like the Women's Resource Centre must.