All of that's fine in principle, Hempy.
I understand that one of the aims of penalties and sentencing is deterrence. But to get to the point at which the deterrence aim is promoted through a penalty, the offence has to be proven.
All I'm saying, as a general point rather than as a specific comment on a case the details of the charges and facts of which I have no knowledge other than through the media, is this: If a person has been charged with offences, one of the elements of which is the actual endangerment of life, and no lives were endangered in fact by the person's conduct, it follows that those offences were not committed and the theoretical penalty and its deterrence value are irrelevant. It's not that life might have been endangered or could have been endangered. It's that life was actually endangered.
However, I repeat: I have no knowledge of details of the charges and facts in this particular case other than through the media, and I'm just making a general comment.