It was reading some of the responses here which led me to the conclusion that the tree episode was viewed "more seriously" than the drink driving case.

It also seemed to me that the attitude was "He's got/getting it, let's have a slice of that".

That attitude doesn't seem to prevail when some poor devil has been killed by a dangerous driver. The victim is dead, gone, not here but do you see such a levy imposed on the perpetrator?

Part of the tree "fine" was put down as "proceeds of crime". OK then, let's impose such a levy on killer drivers because the rest of their life results in them earning from the process of their crime.