Fair enough, "law is reason, free from passion" and it should be, so let me gauge back the emotion and analyze the sentence more rationally!

1) I am not trained in law in general, or Australian penal code in particular, but I don't have to be: There are some legal decisions that you just know are wrong, even though you may not be a legal expert, e.g. cutting off the right arm for theft (in sharia law), death penalty (exercised in Singapore and other countries) and death penalty in general, prosecuting minors for texting their own revealing photos, etc. Nassim Nicholas says in The Bed of Procrustes "My biggest problem with modernity may lie in the growing separation of the ethical and the legal." I feel this to be the case with this verdict, i.e. the law has been applied to the letter, without regard to the particular circumstance.

2) The "technical cluelessness" of the judge comes about from his prima facie acceptance of the charges applied to the usage. Aurora was billed $193,187.43 by the provider Telstra for data transfer between 19 November 2009 to 19 February 2010, approximately $64K a month. It is stated (http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/cops/monks_k_m) that she has downloaded movies among other Internet activities (interesting that they didn't bring in piracy charges for the movies), the exact number of movies or the amount of data downloaded is not stated (this is one question the judge should have asked). The conviction is presented as "she has downloaded $200K worth of data, which is erroneous, this is what Aurora was billed. This is akin to RIAA suing for $9K per shared song (http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/12/us-department-o/), this doesn't mean that a song is "worth" that much. I am assuming that the 3G account for this SIM card is sporadically used for a high amount per megabyte. So what they did is to charge all Monks' usage using that rate. The judge could have investigated the amount of data usage and based his conviction on fair market value of that.

3) Now for the special circumstances, perhaps the more "emotional" part. As the judge describes

"You are 33 years old. You have one conviction for stealing in 2002. I accept it was probably a relatively minor matter because it was dealt with by way of a fine. Your upbringing was unstable in the extreme. You lived in the streets for most of your teenage years and became involved in drinking alcohol and drug taking. You have been diagnosed with depression and bi-polar disorder. You are socially isolated and spend long periods at home alone and accessing the Internet. You have no family support being largely estranged from parents and siblings. You are in receipt of a disability pension. You have incurred debts and have difficulty managing money. It is doubtful that you will ever repay the money stolen by your use of the card."

Not much more need to be said.

4) Here's the judge's main reasoning:

"That must operate to demonstrate to you that you cannot repeat this type of offending but also to demonstrate to others that, even though the initial theft of the card may not have been yours, your taking advantage of that theft to the extent you did will not go unpunished. I am conscious that you live in rental accommodation and that you may lose that if jailed. However, there is no choice in my view other than to impose a custodial sentence. However to recognize the mitigating factors and your prospects of rehabilitation with support, that will be partly suspended."

So, although he sympathizes with Monks' situation, he want to make an example out of her. He mentions that Monks will probably lose her rental accommodation if jailed. It is clear that she is incapable of paying back the compensation levy of $150 (will this bring additional fines?), let alone the $193K. If they are not going to get their money back, what good is the fine? It is clear that this is a message to everybody else.

5) What riled me in this case is that everybody is so sympathetic with RIAA cases, but when it comes to this case, which, in effect, is pretty much the same, people suddenly become strict law enforcers.