Of further interest is the fact the editorial from Bushwatch cited by whomod is completely unverifiable.

No names are given and dates are, to say the least, difficult to discern (but it appears to have happened in August 1999). As such, there is no way of verifying whether the information provided is accurate or if there is more to the story.

For example: when the article says the woman was a "first time offender" that could mean either she had no criminal record whatsover or that she had a lengthy criminal record and this was her first DRUGS offense. It could also mean that this was her first adult conviction but that she had juvenile convictions. Or it could mean that she was convicted, placed on probation, violated her probation and was now being sentenced on her original conviction.

However, we have no way of knowing "the rest of the story" here due to the nature of the source.

As such, and given that Bushwatch is every bit as partisan as whomod, there is currently no reason not to assume the information is skewed, if not wholly inaccurate.