Hi again maryval:
I remember your original post about this the other week.
Unfortunately, what has happened, i.e. convicted of 2 similar offences, sentenced on both, but actually only serving time on one, is common practice by Courts.
What obviously has happened is that he has been ordered to serve the sentences "concurrently" which is why it has been ordered as you have described.
Had the sentencing been "consecutively" he would have been given both terms, i.e. in this case 10 months instead of 5.
You may think at the moment that this is unjust, however, the other sentence has been left pending in the eventuality that he re-offends at a later date. It is, if you like, a sword of damocles hanging over him should he contemplate anything similar in the future.
The fact also that he chose trial at Magistrates Court instead of Crown Court automatically restricted the severity of the sentence which could be imposed. The higher Court has greater sentencing powers. At a guess, I would imagine that his solicitor pointed that out to him to help minimise the punishment.
You may have a right to appeal which is a matter to discuss with your solicitor or legal representative.
Were he to re-offend in the future, not only would he have to serve this remaining 5 months, but, on conviction, would also receive further punishment for that offence.
However, it would be again down to the discretion of the Court to decide how the sentences be served.
Hope this is of help.