Our View: Leniency shown - but was it right?

The drug case of AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd begs the question: Has justice been done?
The 56-year-old appeared in Tauranga District Court in December and pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis. He was convicted and fined despite his protests the punishment outweighed the crime.
The charge stemmed from a police search of Rudd's launch at Tauranga Bridge Marina on October 7.
They found 25g of cannabis - a charge with a maximum penalty of three months in prison or a $500 fine.
Rudd was back in court yesterday fighting to have this conviction wiped.
His lawyer argued the conviction would have a major impact on Rudd's ability to travel overseas for work.
The Crown argued the offending was "at the higher end of the scale" and close to the quantity that is legally presumed for supply.
The judge sided with Rudd, saying there was evidence the rock star would be refused an entry visa or have difficulty gaining entry to at least three countries the band normally travels to.
Rudd was discharged without conviction and has to pay prosecution costs of $1500.
There will be people who agree with this decision and even believe that possessing cannabis is okay and therefore the punishment did outweigh the crime.
But their arguments should be directed at the law itself rather than supporting one judge's administration of it.
Justice has not been done in this case.
Everyone knows possessing cannabis is illegal and therefore if you do it you must be prepared to face the consequences.
There are plenty of people who suffer hardship because they have broken the law. Tough. This is the way the system works - or at least should work.
Someone's job is no excuse to escape conviction.
In fact, it should be the opposite. People who have built up wealth, power or privilege or who have jobs of responsibility should know better and protect what they have.
In Rudd's case, he is a member of one of the world's biggest rock bands and is in the enviable position of having money, fame and fortune. Good on him - he has earned that but it is his responsibility to preserve this, no one else's.
Instead, he chose to gamble this. This wasn't an accident. No one made him do this. It was his decision to obtain cannabis and have it on his boat.
Readers will be left with the impression he has been given special treatment because of who he is and they would be right.
To make matters worse, he has only been made to pay a paltry $1500 towards the Crown.
Why wasn't he ordered to pay $50,000 towards a children's charity?