Gascoigne has yet to be tried.The offence of dangerous driving exists to deter people from driving dangerously in a way which might cause 'accidents'. The offence of contempt exists to deter people from acting in ways which might cause prejudice to ongoing proceedings. In either case the gravity of the offending will be a factor in sentencing. In either case gravity of offending will increase and further offences may be charged if which 'might cause' becomes 'caused'.
Mr Mochrie's offending, posing with a once famous acquitted defendant, presumably falls below the charging threshold. That though may not be enough to save him from a reprimand from the Bar.
Let me try again, have you read the court's reasons?
Whatever you say, no person is sentenced for what they might have done, they are sentenced for what they did.
Dangerous driving is merely 'driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver'.
It's easy an easy enough offence to commit, there doesn't need to be a crash.
Robinson breached the order, so he's clearly guilty.
Court orders must be obeyed, even barmy ones, so one could argue the need for a deterrent sentence.
But Robinson could be forgiven for feeling a bit aggrieved when he compares his case to Mochrie's.
Both men took illegal pics of defendants at court resulting in no harm.
The barrister who did it walks away, the member of public who did it goes to prison.
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the notion that lawyers - when push comes to shove - stick together.