In the Hobart Supreme Court on Wednesday Crosswell's 10-and-a-half year jail term was reduced to eight years, on the grounds that it was ``manifestly excessive'' according to appeal judge Justice Peter Evans.

Manifestly excessive means that it was obviously and clearly too excessive. Well, it was not so obvious and clear to Justice Helen Wood in 2010.

Justice Wood sentenced Crosswell after he pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer by discharging a sawn-off shotgun at her, and armed robbery and aggravated assault by pointing the loaded weapon at the face of newsagency staff.

Justice Evans believes this man, who has a long list of prior convictions including assault and stealing, is not beyond reform and should be entitled to a parole period.

Whether or not reform is possible is better left to the courts. The issue here is the message it sends to would-be criminals, the police and the community. The Police Association is justifiably angry over a ruling that reduces the penalty for firing a scatter-gun weapon at a police officer.

Any shooter who fires a shotgun at a person is surely in serious trouble because they know shotguns are scatter guns, with pellets and a trajectory capable of hitting targets indiscriminately.

The police victim, who could not return to front-line duties because of the incident, was clearly lucky she wasn't hit. For this Crosswell could also count himself extremely lucky.

If the court was establishing a prison term for someone as dangerous as Crosswell it might be understandable, but the court had already established a prison term after considering the facts of the case.

A ``manifestly excessive'' term by definition suggests that it should have been considerably less. However, the 10-year term was reduced by two years. The community deserves protection from those who break the law using deadly force. Alternatively, criminals need to know the community will not tolerate violence, especially against police doing their job.

In this case the message from the courts is unclear.