In the news

I guess what I'm asking is whether those sentencing guidelines are appropriate, or even applied correctly in this case:

The approach to the imposition of a custodial sentence should be as follows:
1) Has the custody threshold been passed?

1. A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.

2. There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specific guidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline is available to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpability of the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.

3. The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.

I'm not sticking up for this person, quite the opposite. I am however coming from the position that the bar for imprisonment is often too low across the board. In discussing cases like this, I might be able to think more clearly about civil liberties in general. The sentencing guidelines also seem as confused as I am:

There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies.

the harm caused by the offence [...] will be relevant to the assessment