COULD someone please enlighten me why we put up with stupid laws, as well as the stupid judges who dispense ridiculous judgments.

I refer to the car thief who was reportedly allowed to keep a stolen car because the police could not trace the legal owner, and because of a stupid, long-established legal precedent that "a thief is entitled to the protection of the criminal law against the theft from him of that which he himself has stolen".

The part of the statement " . . . theft from him" is ridiculous in the extreme as the court only needed to order the confiscation of this stolen vehicle. It could then have been sold and the money used to offset court expenses. What has happened to the law about a thief not benefiting from his crimes?

Not only that, but this thief will be awarded damages because he has been denied the use of this stolen vehicle. God save us from stupid judges whose ridiculous interpretation of the law we have to live with.

A. P. TOBIAS